- From: Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:38:15 +0000
- To: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
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´t 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´t 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: > > ·R-MetadataInteroperable > > ·R-LicenseInteroperable > > And also > > ·R-MetadataMachineRead > > ·R-MetadataStandardized > > ·R-LicenseMachineRead > > ·R-LicenseStandardized > > Possible resolutions for the UCR could be: > > a.Remove R–MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from UCR because they’re 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 10:38:46 UTC