Re: Framework Report (28 Apr 09)

>
>
> >>
> >> Do these definitions cover the gap between
> >> - systems
> >> and
> >> - interop standards
> >> - to match a needed use-case?
> >
>
> I think it is important to cover these, at least in the context of the
> W3C charter, which generally is focused on driving interop standards.


this is how I think gap analsyis works for us:

take any example/case where system A is not interoperable with system B

then ask, why are they not interoperable?

look at syntax, semantics, pragmatics aspects
of each system and spot where the 'gap' is, ie where the two systems do not
share the representation/use

narrow it down specifically to a domain cluster, for example medical vs
communication domain
identify domain specific issues (terminology, policy)

the analysis above will help to decide what steps need to be taken to bridge
the gap

In addition to the dimensions above, we may want to find additional factors
for our gap analysis method:

for example the systems are not interoperable because:

people
processes
policy
system
language
etc


you can add freely if there are things we left out


> >>
> >> If by systems you mean systems in use, then I would say that falls under
> >> the pragmatic bracket
>
> We need that pragmatic bracket! :-)
> >
> > in the note, we define three dimensions (at least, in fact  4) for
> > addressing an interoperability gap (the (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic
> and
> > conceptual)
> >
> > then we project these dimensions across different fields of interop,
> > communication, medical, etc etc
> >
> > so I would say that matrix should help us define the 'interoperability
> gap'
> > which is a broad description of possibly everything that does not
> > interoperate, down to a few specific factors.
> > I would say that any use case can be broken down
> >
> > give me one  or two example of interop gap that you are referring to, and
> I
> > ll try to map the case with the proposed method of analysis, in fact we
> can
> > map all of them if you want
>
> Let me put a disclaimer first on not being an expert on ontology mapping.
>
> OK take CAP for example. If we were looking at an alerting use-case
> the first would be to define the ontology for emergency alerting. Next
> would be to identify existing standards (or interop formats) that can
> cover that scope, like CAP + other interop standards in alerting.
>
> 1) The first gap would be that between our ontology and the standards.
>
> 2) Next you would document alerting systems that support the format
> (e.g. Sahana does) and the gap would be to those alerting systems that
> do not support any alerting interop standard. A more subtle gap would
> be the actual tested level of support of that standard.
>
> Chamindra
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************