INTEROPERABILITY  FRAMEWORKS,  THEORIES  AND  MODELS  

 Antonio  Grilo1    

     1.  Introduction    The  challenge  of  developing  an  Enterprise  Science  Foundation  that  has  recently  emerged   has   led   some   of   the   academic   agents   to   seek   to   systematise   the  Interoperability  Body  of  Knowledge  (IBoK).  Still   in   the  embryonic  stages,   these  efforts   have   been   looking   to   organise   and   aggregate   information   from   very  fragmented   and   disparate   sources,   and   with   different   granularities   of   detail,  distinct  epistemology  origins,  separate  academic  fields,  etc.  These  paper  aims  to  distinguishing   between   levels   of   specificity   of   Interoperability   academic   work,    that   are   often   confused,   by   considering  Models,   Theories   and   Frameworks.   In  section   2,   the   paper   revises   the   concepts   of   frameworks,   theories   and  models,  within  the  context  of  the  Enterprise  Science  Foundation  recent  work.  In  section  3  it   is   addressed   current   state   of   art   on   Interoperability   frameworks,   and  envisioned   forthcoming   developments.   Section   4   describes   Interoperability  Theories   and   pinpoints   some   potential   developments   paths.   In   section   5   it   is  stressed   that   despite   the   IBoK   has   plenty   of   work   developed   regarding  Interoperability  Models   and   grounded   on   the   recent   FInES  Research  Roadmap  Challenges   and   Key   Technologies,   provides   some   hints   to   where   forthcoming  effort  should  be  directed  as  far  as  interoperability  models  is  concern.        2.  Frameworks,  Theories  and  Models    The   recent   efforts   of   developing   am   Enterprise   Interoperability   Science  Foundation  within   the   IBoK   demonstrate   a   growing   interest   in   developing   the  subject  of  Interoperability  in  a  more  systematic  and  solid  approach.  Nobel  prize  laureate  Elinor  Ostrom  (2005)  stresses   the  necessity  of  distinguishing  between  levels  of   specificity  of   academic  work   that   are  often   confused.  Particularly,   she  regards   the   importance   of   clearly   considering   Models,   Theories   and  Frameworks.  In  the  case  of  Interoperability  and  its  Science  Foundation,  given  the  need  for  multiple  disciplines,  and  hence  multiple  disciplinary  languages,  and  the  multiple   levels   of   analysis   involved   in   studying   configural   relationships   among  technologies,   rules,   relevant   aspects   of   the  world,   the   study  of   Interoperability  does   depend   on   theoretical  work   undertaken   at   three   levels   of   specificity   that  are   often   confused   with   one   another.   These   essential   foundations   include   (1)  frameworks,  (2)  theories,  and  (3)  models.  Hence,  it  is  defended  in  this  paper  that  the   Scientific   Foundation   of   Interoperability   should   address   the   various   levels  and  make  a  gap  analysis  of  where  current  academic  scientific  state-­‐of-­‐art  is  and  

                                                                                                               1  UNIDEMI,  Assistant  Professor  at  Faculdade  de  Ciências  e  Tecnologia  da  UNL,  and  Partner  of  Neobiz  Consulting  

where   is   need   to   head   to.   The   reason   is   that   analyses   conducted   at   each   level  provide   different   degrees   of   specificity   related   to   a   particular   Interoperability  problem.  

Ostrom   (2005)   stress   that   the   development   and   use   of   a   general  framework   helps   to   identify   the   elements   and   relationships   among   these  elements   that   one   needs   to   consider   for   analysis.   Frameworks   organize  diagnostic  and  prescriptive  research  and   inquiry.  Hence,   they  provide  the  most  general   list   of   variables   that   should   be   used   to   analyze   all   types   of  interoperability   research   and   developments.   Interoperability   frameworks   will  provide   a   meta-­‐   theoretical   language   that   is   necessary   to   talk   about   when  developing   theories   for   Interoperability   and   that   can   be   used   to   compare  theories.   They   attempt   to   identify   the   universal   Interoperability   elements   that  any  theory  relevant  to  Interoperability  would  need  to  include.  Many  differences  in   surface   reality   can   result   from   the   way   these   variables   combine   with,   or  interact  with,  one  another.  Thus,  the  elements  contained  in  a  framework  help  the  analyst  generate  the  questions  that  need  to  be  addressed  when  first  conducting  an  analysis.  

The  development  and  use  of  theories  enable  the  analyst  to  specify  which  elements   of   the   framework   are   particularly   relevant   for   certain   kinds   of  questions   and   to   make   general   working   assumptions   about   these   elements  Ostrom  (2005).  Thus,   Interoperability   theories  shall   focus  on  a   framework  and  make   specific   assumptions   that   are   necessary   for   an   analyst   to   diagnose   a  phenomenon,   explain   its  processes,   and  predict  outcomes.   Several   theories  are  usually  compatible  with  any  framework.     Finally,   models   make   precise   assumptions   about   a   limited   set   of  parameters   and   variables   Ostrom   (2005).   Logic,   mathematics,   game   theory,  architectures,   experimentation   and   simulation,   and   other   means   are   used   to  explore  the  consequences  of  these  assumptions  systematically  on  a  limited  set  of  outcomes.  Multiple  models  are  compatible  with  most  theories.        3.  Interoperability  Frameworks    

Interoperability   framework   development   has   been   triggered   on   the  Interoperability  Developments  for  Enterprise  Application  and  Software  (IDEAS)  project,   a   European   Commission   funded   project   under   the   European   V  Framework  Program,  which  was  completed  in  2003  and  aimed  to  create  and  to  manage   a   Working   Group   to   elaborate   a   strategic   roadmap   in   the   domain   of  enterprise   application   and   software   interoperability.   It   stated   that   in   order   to  achieve   meaningful   interoperation   between   enterprises,   interoperability   must  be   achieved   on   all   layers   of   an   enterprise.   This   includes   the   business  environment   and   business   processes   on   the   business   layer,   the   organisational  roles,   skills   and   competencies   of   employees   and   knowledge   assets   on   the  knowledge  layer,  and  applications,  data  and  communication  components  on  the  ICT  layer.  In  addition,  semantic  descriptions  can  be  used  to  create  the  necessary  mutual  understanding  between  enterprises  that  want  to  collaborate.  

The   Athena   Project   was   subsequently   also   funded   by   the   European  Commission  under  the  VI  Framework  Program  and  aimed  at  adopting  a  holistic  perspective  on  interoperability  in  order  to  analyse  and  understand  the  business  

needs  and  the  technical  requirements,  and  a  multidisciplinary  solution  approach  to  solving  the  interoperability  problems.  

On   the  aftermath  of   these  projects,   a  number  of   initiatives  have   tried   to  systemize  and  classify  the  different  interoperability  aspects  into  comprehensive  interoperability   frameworks,   among   others   the   e-­‐Government   Interoperability  Framework   (e-­‐GIF),   the   Levels   of   Information   Systems   Interoperability  framework  (LISI)  or  the  European  Interoperability  Framework  (EIF).  Generally,  the   initiators   of   these   frameworks   have   been   practitioners   or   public  administrations  which  are  pursuing  the  goal  of  standardizing  across  distributed  organizations   and   avoiding   technology   vendor   lock-­‐in.   These   interoperability  frameworks  distinguish  different  layers  of  interoperability  and  describe  artifacts  or  high-­‐level   standards   for   each  of   these   layers.  With   the   exception  of   the  EIF,  they  distinguish  the  infrastructure,  data/message  and  functions/  services  layer.  In  addition,  the  EIF  introduces  organizational  aspects  of  interoperability,  e.g.  the  definition   of   business   goals   and   the  modeling   of   business   processes   to   enable  different   organizations   to   work   together.   In   addition,   most   frameworks  introduce  either  explicitly  or  implicitly  an  evolutionary  perspective  and  suggest  a  linear  advancement  from  lower  to  higher  levels  of   interoperability.  Peristeras  and   Tarabanis   (2006)   relate   existing   interoperability   frameworks   to   theoretic  concepts   from   linguistics   and   semiotics   and   derive   the   Connection,  Communication,  Consolidation,  Collaboration  Interoperability  Framework  (C4IF)  for   information   systems   interoperability.   A  more   holistic   approach   is   taken   by  the   Business   Interoperability   Framework   suggested   by   Legner   and   Wende  (2006)  who  explicitly  introduced  organizational  and  management-­‐related  layers.  On   the   basis   of   contingency   theory,   the   authors   argument   that   the   maximum  level   of   interoperability   is   not   necessarily   the   optimal   one   and   identify  organizational   and   environmental   contingencies   (e.g.   industry   dynamics,   e-­‐business  maturity)   impacting   this  optimal   level  of   interoperability   (Legner  and  Lebreton  2007).     Nowadays,  we  can  consider  that  a  generic  Interoperability  Framework  is  must  considers  the  following  structure  (Charalabidis  et  al,  2009):    

•   Technical   Interoperability,   investigating   problems   and   proposing  solutions   for   the   technical-­‐level   interconnection   of   ICT   systems   and   the  basic   protocols,   digital   formats   or   even   security   and   accessibility  mechanisms.  •   Semantic   Interoperability,   including  methods   and   tools,   usually   in   the  form   of   ontologies   or   standardized   data   schemas,   to   tackle   issues   of  automated   information   sharing,   during   the   various   process   execution  steps.  •  Organisational   Interoperability,   relating   to   the  problems  and  solutions  relevant   to   business   processes,   functional   organisation   or   cross-­‐enterprise   collaboration   activities   –   usually   involving   various   different  ICT  systems  and  data  sources.  •   Enterprise   Interoperability,   referring   to   the   alignment   of   higher  enterprise   functions   or   government   policies,   usually   to   be   expressed   in  the  form  of  legal  elements,  business  rules,  strategic  goals  or  collaborative  supply  chain  layouts.  

 Aneesh  (2010)  has  further  refined  these  levels,  and  designed  the  Business  

Interoperability   Parameters.   Although   aimed   at   allowing   a   measurement   and  assessment  of  the  degree  of  interoperability  between  companies  (Figure  1),  the  BIP  provides  a  fine  detailed  Interoperability  Framework  for  developing  sectorial  frameworks.    

   

Figure  1–  Business  Interoperability  Parameters  (source:  Aneesh,  2010)        4.  Interoperability  Theories    Current   scientific   Foundation   of   Interoperability   has   been   lacking   specific  theories.  Despite  the  abundant  existence  of  theories  in  fields  that  somehow  are  related   with   Interoperability,   like   artificial   intelligence   theories   or   more  mathematical   theories   like   patterns   theory,   set   theory,   category   theory,   first-­‐order  logic,  graph  theory,  information  theory,  etc.  there  has  been  little  progress  in  terms  of  developing  own  theories  on  Interoperability.  In  later  years  there  has  also  been  the  acknowledgment  of  developing  economical  theories  in  the  context  

of  enterprise  interoperability  (Li  et  al  2008).  The  main  rational  is  twofold:  firstly,  current   economical   theories   have   difficulty   to   explain   digital   ecosystems;  secondly,  there  is  a  trend  to  shift  the  focus  of  enterprise  from  pure  profit-­‐based  results  to  more  sustainable  and  community  based  focus  (see  e.g.  FINES  Research  Roadmap,  Missikoff  et  al,  2010).       Theory  of  complexity  has  also  been  recently  looked  to  ground  theories  for  explaining   Interoperability   problems,   issues   and   challenges   (Charalabidis   et   al,  2009),   like:   i)   intelligent   reconfiguration   of   components   in   evolutionary  networked  systems;  ii)  conformance  testing  and  checking  in  complex  systems;  or  iii)   harmonization   of   ontological   structures   to   support   dynamic   ecosystems.   In  the   first   situation,   theories   are   required   to   address   how   learning   processes  should  be  designed  to  support  the  adaption  of  the  several  system  network  nodes  involved,   and   thus   keep   the   global   network   interoperable.   Moreover,   theories  must  also  address  how  interoperable  networks,  as  complex  integrated  systems,  will   face   transients   whenever   internal   or   external   “interference”   occur,   e.g.,  update  in  one  of  its  nodes,  and  that  the  evolution  and  progressive  adaptation  of  each  network  system  node  should  be  done  supported  by  a  systematic  study  and  analysis  of  the  network  transients,  as  single  node,  clusters,  and  global  network.    

Within   the   second   set   of   issues,   conformance   testing   and   checking   for  complex   systems   interoperability,   theories   are   needed   to   address   how   new  system   nodes  may   be   integrated   in   networks,   or  when   networks   are   updated,  and  how  updates  can  dealt  with  by  the  networks,  and  how  the  networks  should  react  to  become  interoperable,  or  keep  its  interoperability,  with  the  news  nodes,  or  updates,  through  the  understanding  of  the  intrinsic  knowledge  and  behaviour  of  the  nodes.  Theory  development  is  also  crucial  on  ontologies  from  descriptive  specifications   in   non   specialized   language,   e.g.,   queries   described   in   natural  language,  supported  by  feedback  mechanisms,  with  learning  and  reconfiguration  capacities.  Theories  for  checking  for  the  conformance  of  data,  models,  knowledge  and  behaviours  of  the  systems  and  applications  in  dynamic  environments  must  also  be  addressed.     The   third   set   of   issues   and   challenges   deal   with   the   need   to   develop  theories   for  harmonization  of   ontological   structures   to   support   the   application  dynamics   and   enable   adaptability   of   users   semantical   specifications.   This   will  require   theories   to  address  mutation  of  ontologies  using  stochastic  methods   to  support   updates   in   the   representation   of   concepts   and   its   instances,   and   that  support   semantic   harmonization,   and   adaptative   mapping   in   dynamic  environments.   Finally,   theories   on   knowledge   management   are   required   to  address  the  information  and  behaviour  of  the  complex  system  in  each  node  and  in   the   integrated   network,   and   support   the   dynamics   and   evolutionary  characteristics  of  the  complex  system.        5.  Interoperability  Models    Interoperability  efforts  have  been  much  focused  on  the  development  of  models.  Through   adapting   computer   science   and   engineering   well   established   models  like  Model-­‐Driven  Architecture   (MDA),  Service-­‐  Oriented  Architecture   (SOA)  or  Unified   Modelling   Method   (UMM),   or   through   the   development   of   technical  

standards   that   have   been   universally   adopted,   creation   of   ontologies   for  semantic   mapping   and   mediation,   design   of   data   standards   and   codifications,  organisational   guidelines   or   broader   enterprise-­‐level   architectures   to   support  cross-­‐organisational   cooperation.   Many   infrastructural   models   and   associated  architectures  have  been  advanced  in  the  research  environment,  including  client-­‐server,  distributed,  P2P,  Grids,  Cloud  Computing,  combining  infrastructure-­‐as-­‐a-­‐service,   platform-­‐as-­‐a-­‐service,   and   software-­‐as-­‐a-­‐service.   These   models   that  have  been  developed  within  research  and  development  projects  but  also  through  standardization  bodies.     Still,   there   is   a   wide   scope   for   further   development   of   interoperability  models.  The  FInES  Research  Roadmap  (Missikoff  et  al,  2010)  highlights  there  are  forthcoming   model   platform   challenges   within   the   context   of   federated   open  applications   for   services   devoted   to   business   operations   and   enterprise  resources  management;  awareness  and  intelligence  capacity  of  an  enterprise  to  look  at  its  own  operations,  understanding  how  it  is  doing,  identifying  innovation  needs   and  opportunities;   business   specification  methods   and   tools,   simulation,  what-­‐if   methods   to   support   business   experts'   work   through   engineering  methods,  business  process  modelling   tools,  enterprise  ontologies;  methods  and  tools   aimed   at   transforming   higher   level   abstract   specifications   into   technical  specifications;  meta-­‐knowledge  infrastructure;  interoperability  and  cooperation  infrastructure   deploying   seamless   cooperation   between   people,   things,   and  computers;   digital   elements,   which   will   largely   reflect   what   exists   in   the   real  (analogical)  world,     like  creatures,  entities,  both  simple  and  complex,  animated  and  inanimate,  tangible  and  intangible.     These   challenges   will   require   that   new   technological   and   business  models,   algorithms   and   tools   be   developed,   identified   in   the   FInES   RR   as  Emergent   Technologies   (mesh-­‐sensor   networks,   CaaS,   convergent   networks,  identify-­‐aware   networks,   ubiquitous   communication,   tracking   and   traceability,  real-­‐worlf   web);   Roadmapping   Enterprise   Applications   Systems   (visualisation  and   interaction,   intelligent   proactive   behaviour,   automated   service   discovery,  tera-­‐architectures,   IaaS/PaaS,   software   as   a   service,   IoS,   FOT,   ISU,   intelligent  digital   elements   and   knowledge   representation);   and   Organisational   Concepts  and   Supporting   Technologies   (social   mining,   GRC,   participative   business  engineering,   business   modelling   and   simulation,   globalised   micro-­‐business,  business  ecosystem  modelling,  socialisation  and  web  2.0  impact  in  organisations,  and  business  rules).    

Currently,   due   to   the   different   sources   of   models   and   semantics,  organizations   are   experiencing   difficulties   exchanging   digital   information  seamlessly.  However  this  situation  is  likely  to  become  even  worst  in  the  advent  of   previously   foreseen   evolution   of   the   enterprise   systems   and   applications,  whose   dynamics   result   in   increasing   the   interoperability   problem   due   to   the  continuous   need   for   model   adjustments   and   semantics   harmonization.   To  contribute   for   a   long   term   stable   interoperable   enterprise   operating  environment,   a   possible   interoperability   model   strategy   is   the   integration   of  traceability   functionalities   in   information   systems   as   a   way   to   support   such  sustainability   (Agostinho   et   al,   2010).   Hence,   either   data,   semantic,   and  structural   mappings   between   enterprises   in   the   complex   network   should   be  modelled  as  tuples  and  stored  in  a  knowledge  base  for  communication  support  

with   reasoning   capabilities,   thus   allowing   to   trace,   monitor   and   support   the  stability  maintenance  of  a  system’s  interoperable  state.        6.  Conclusion    The  efforts  of   creating  a  Enterprise   Interoperability   Science  Foundation  within  the   context   of   the   Interoperability   Body   of   Knowledge   requires   a   more  structured   approach   from   academics   towards   organising   research   work.   This  paper   has   framed   current   state   of   art   and   forthcoming   challenges   in   terms   of  Interoperability   Frameworks,   Interoperability   Theories   and   Interoperability  Models.   It   is   possible   to   conclude   Interoperability   Frameworks   have   somehow  stabilised  now.  The  weakest  part  of  the  IBoK  is  clearly  Interoperability  Theories,  since  researchers  have  “borrowed”  theories  from  other  scientific  fields  but  have  rarely,   if   at   all,   developed   Interoperability   specific   theories.   There   is   a   clear  challenge   in   this   area.   The   IBoK   is   also   very   populated   with   Interoperability  Models.   Most   of   research   and   engineering   work   has   led   to   surfacing   plentiful  Interoperability  Models.  However,   it   is   argued   that   in   light  of   the   recent  FInES  Research   Roadmap,   more   sophisticated   models   are   needed,   covering   both  technology,   business   and   people   subjects,   along  with   a   need   to   deal  with   new  ways  of  models  meta-­‐morphims.      References    Charalabidis  Y.,  Goncalves  R.,  Liapis  A.,  Popplewell  K.  (2009).  Towards  a  Scientific  Foundation  for  Interoperability.  European  Commission  EISB  Tack  Force,  June  2009.  Retrieved  from  ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/enet/20090603-­‐presentacion-­‐charalabidis-­‐goncalves-­‐liapis-­‐popplewell_en.pdf    Peristeras,  V.  and  Tarabanis,  K.  (2006)  The  Connection,  Communication,  Consolidation,  Collaboration   Interoperability   Framework   (C4IF)   For   Information   Systems  Interoperability’,   International   Journal   of   Interoperability   in   Business   Information  Systems  1:  61–72.    Legner,   C.   and   Lebreton,   B.   (2007)   Preface   to   the   Focus   Theme   Section:   'Business  Interoperability'   Business   Interoperability   Research:   Present   Achievements   and  Upcoming  Challenges,Electronic  Markets,17:3,176  —  186    Legner,   C.   and   Wende,   K.   (2006)   Towards   an   Excellence   Framework   for   Business  Interoperability,  in  eValues,  Proceedings  of  the  19th  Bled  Conference,  Bled,  Slovenia,  5–7   June,   Electronic   Conference   Proceedings,   online   at:   http://domino.fov.uni-­‐mb.si/proceedings    Ostrom;   E.   (2005)   Doing   Institutional   Analysis   Digging   Deeper   Than   Markets   and  Hierarchies,   C.   Meánard   and   M.   M.   Shirley   (eds.),   Handbook   of   New   Institutional  Economics,  819–848.  Springer    

Agostinho,   C.   ,   Sarraipa,   J.   Gonçalves,   D.   and   Jardim-­‐Goncalves,   R.   (2010)   Tuple-­‐based  semantic  and  structural  mapping  for  a  sustainable  interoperability,  Doctoral  Conference  of  PDEEC  (forthcoming  DOCEIS'11)      Missikoff,  M.,  Drissi,  S.,  Giesecke,  R.,  Grilo,  A.,  Li,  M.,  Werth,  D.  (2010)  FInES,  Research  Roadmap,  Europeran  Commission,  http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/documents/task-­‐forces/research-­‐roadmap/finesresearchroadmap.  Pdf,  last  accessed  November  2010    Li,  M.  et  al,  Proposition,  Informal  Study  Group  on  Value.  Retrieved  May  29,  2010,  from  Value  Proposition  for  Enterprise  Interoperability  Report.:  http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/ei-­‐isg_en.html