W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?

From: Jo緌 Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:59:07 -0300
To: "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D025FDF6.9072D%jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Dear Deirdre and all,

Regrets for the call today. I am again travelling (this and next week).

Here goes my proposal:

Eliminate the R-MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable
requirements

Rename R-MetadataStandardized to MetadataFormatStandardized


Include the following definitions:

R-MetadataFormatStandardized - Metadata should conform to standard formats
to facilitate metadata interoperability
R-FormatStandardized - Data should conform to standard formats to
facilitate interoperability
R-FormatMachineRead(able) Metadata should conform to standard formats that
aim at facilitating automated processing

R-LicenseStandardized - Data about the license(s) attributed to a dataset
should conform to standard formats to facilitate interoperability
R-LicenseMachineRead(able) - Data about the license(s) attributed to a
dataset should conform to standard formats that aim at facilitating
automated processing

Best regards,


Jo緌 Paulo










On 29/8/14, 7:38 AM, "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org> wrote:

>Hi all, 
>
>In today's call I would like if possible to make a decision on this...
>
>Should we keep the following requirements:
>
>     €R-MetadataInteroperable
>     €R-LicenseInteroperable
>
>In addition to the following requirements are defined:
>
>     €R-MetadataMachineRead
>     €R-MetadataStandardized
>
>     €R-LicenseMachineRead
>     €R-LicenseStandardized
>
>Discussion at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>Sent: 22 August 2014 13:05
>To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm not sure that discussing too much interoperability will help us get a
>quick solution. In fact in what Deirdre put below, item (c) implies that
>(a) and (b) are not necessary (they're just 'standard-focused' rewriting
>of (c) )
>
>I don't understand what Joao Paulo said. He proposed to get rid of the
>the *Standardized requirements but he suggests to add them back, in
>practice.
>
>In the end I would just keep
>R-MetadataStandardized, making the point that standard should address the
>model, documentation and interoperability (as it should, see the intro at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization)
>R-MetadataMachineReadable, assuming this includes format concerns (which
>with the first requirement gives you standardized formats).
>
>Best,
>
>Antoine
>
>On 8/11/14 4:40 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote:
>> Thanks for your input Giancarlo and Laufer. Is it fair to summarise as
>>follows:
>>
>> Two datasets are interoperable if:
>>
>> a.They are modelled according to the same standard.
>>
>> b.They are modelled according to standards that are interoperable
>>
>> c.They are modelled according to the same formal representation (not
>>necessarily standardised)
>>
>> (b) corresponds to a case where we know how the meaning of the elements
>>in each standard relate to the elements in the other standard.
>>
>> (c) corresponds to the case where you have used a reference ontology to
>>facilitate the interoperability of ECG data.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Deirdre Lee
>>
>> Research Associate
>>
>> eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>>
>> Insight-NUIG
>>
>> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>>
>> Galway, Ireland
>>
>> deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org>
>> skype: deirdrelee
>>
>> twitter: @deirdrelee
>>
>> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
>><http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Giancarlo Guizzardi [mailto:gguizzardi@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 11 August 2014 09:00
>> *To:* Laufer
>> *Cc:* Lee, Deirdre; Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
>> *Subject:* Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Regarding the two questions:
>>
>> (a) Does standardization entail interoperability?
>>
>> and (b) Can something be interoperable without being standardized?
>>
>> Let us first settled what we mean by interoperability.
>>
>> I will start with the following working definition of semantic
>>interoperability:
>>
>> A model X is semantically interoperable with model Y if we know
>>
>> how the meaning of the elements in X relate to the meaning of elements
>>in Y.
>>
>> If we take "meaning" in the sense of referential semantics, this means
>>that
>>
>> we can always relate in the correct manner
>>
>> the referents of the model elements in X with the referents
>>
>> of the model elements in Y.
>>
>> With that in mind (and answering (b)), we can achieve interoperability
>>whenever we are able
>>
>> to establish and fully understand the relation between the referents of
>>X and Y.
>>
>> Good standards certainly facilitate that.
>>
>> However, if we put the question as "standardization ENTAILS
>>interoperability" (question a),
>>
>> the answer is clearly no.  To put it simply, this is because (among
>>other reasons, including non-technical ones...)
>>
>> there are bad standards. Bad standards in the sense that they are not
>>sufficiently expressive and clear in helping
>>
>> users to express their world views in terms of the standard.
>>
>> There are many examples of domains with multiple standards
>>
>> that it is far from obvious how to relate the meaning of things
>>
>> in standard X and with the meaning of things in standard Y.
>>
>> This is even the case in the so-called hard science domains.
>>
>> To cite on example in heart Electrophysiogy.
>>
>> In the following paper
>>
>> http://www.j-biomed-inform.com/article/S1532-0464(10)00118-8/pdf
>>
>> we show the difficulties in relating multiple existing ECG standards.
>>
>> The paper is actually both an example of lack interoperability with
>>
>> the presence of multiple standards as well as an example of
>>
>> interoperability achieved with a reference ontology that is
>>
>> not a standard, i.e., "interoperability without a standard".
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Giancarlo
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com
>><mailto:laufer@globo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don愒 know if the following example makes sense to this discussion.
>>But it comes to my mind.
>>
>> Analog television has some different standards as, for example, PAL and
>>NTSC, and they are not interoperable.
>>
>> I don愒 know if, in this case, the term should be compatible.
>>
>> Best,
>> Laufer
>>
>> 2014-08-08 11:43 GMT-03:00 Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org
>><mailto:Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     We had a good call today, addressing many of the raised issues for
>>UCR. One issue that we felt warranted more discussion was /ISSUE-23:
>>Review definition of interoperability/
>>https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23
>>
>>     The following questions were raised: Does standardisation imply
>>interoperability? Are there cases where data uses standards, but is not
>>interoperable? Can interoperability be achieved independent of
>>standardisation? In DWBP, should we have a specific definition of
>>interoperability?
>>
>>     In the UCR, there are the following two requirements:
>>
>>     愛-MetadataInteroperable
>>
>>     愛-LicenseInteroperable
>>
>>     And also
>>
>>     愛-MetadataMachineRead
>>
>>     愛-MetadataStandardized
>>
>>     愛-LicenseMachineRead
>>
>>     愛-LicenseStandardized
>>
>>     Possible resolutions for the UCR could be:
>>
>>     a.Remove R胞etadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from
>>UCR because they雹e redundant
>>
>>     b.Improve description of R-MetadataStandardized and
>>R-LicenseStandardized
>>
>>     c.Other?
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Deirdre
>>
>>     
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Deirdre Lee
>>
>>     Research Associate
>>
>>     eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>>
>>     Insight-NUIG
>>
>>     IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>>
>>     Galway, Ireland
>>
>>     deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org>
>>     skype: deirdrelee
>>
>>     twitter: @deirdrelee
>>
>>     linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
>><http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/>
>>
>>     
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 12:59:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:16 UTC