John,
Well said. I would add one more example - XBRL
(http://www.xbrl.org/Home/) which is an XML based vocabulary and
structure for financial reporting and financial transactions - all
financial reporting and transactions. I would categorize this as
"domain interoperability". This is a very large domain and one that
overlaps many others. While there may be issues (there are always
issues) it shows that agreement can be reached on concepts AND TERMS
across a wide domain. Of course, this is one community, one "camp" and
there are others. (01)
So the alternative approach of pervasive standards (and adapters between
those standards) can not be overlooked, particularly if those standards
have mechanisms to allow for growth and application specific concerns. (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Flynn
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:32 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Cc: 'Flynn, John P.'
Subject: [cuo-wg] Interoperability (03)
The following is intended to open discussion on what is meant by
computer interoperability. (04)
There are a variety of conditions that might relate to the term
"interoperability". In order to analyze and consider options to increase
interoperability it would be useful to more clearly define the type of
interoperability we desire to improve. The following is a list of a few
types of computer interoperability in an attempt to narrow down the
specific
type(s) of interoperability we are trying to promote in the context of
CDSI.
- CPU interoperability: CPU's that execute the same instruction set can
run the same machine-level code programs.
- Low-level System interoperability: Low-level system programs, such as
system communications programs, can provide computer interoperability.
At one point, about twenty years ago, Unix machines, PC's and Mac's
could not interact due to their unique system communications programs.
Now almost all computers use TCP-IP and Ethernet protocols to
communicate via the Internet, Intranets, or a classified version of the
Internet such as SIPRNET.
- Applications interoperability: Many computer applications are designed
to support interoperability. Although there are many different email
programs, almost all of them read and send email messages that are
interoperable with one another. Word processing applications are mostly
interoperable with Microsoft Word (the de facto standard), although in
some cases unique formatting may be lost. Microsoft Excel supports the
input and execution of spreadsheets developed on very different computer
hardware. There are a large number of computer music players but they
all support playing MP3 music files.
- Data sharing interoperability: Many computer applications share common
data sources. Sometimes the common data sources are accessed directly at
the data element level from an external data base, file or some other
type of data storage. In other cases the application can only input a
complete data file and convert it to some other internal format for
further processing.
Some applications can not only passively share static data but can also
dynamically modify the common data. A very distributed version of the
static data sharing model is the World Wide Web.
- Direct application to application interoperability: In this situation
the data output from one application is provided directly to another
application as input to some process. (05)
The few, out of many, examples of successful interoperability types
mentioned above all rely of the use of standards such as TCP-IP,
Ethernet, Web standards, email standards, computer music standards or
even standards imposed by the use of a common operating system and
applications, such as those by Microsoft. I suspect a more exhaustive
compilation of successful interoperability examples will support the
contention that the use of standards is essential. So, it would be
useful for us to determine the specific types of computer
interoperability we are shooting for and then determine the standards
that are required to ensure success. The next, and hardest step, is to
enforce those standards. Enforcement is best accomplished through market
forces. If your computer music player won't play
MP3 files you probably aren't going to sell many copies of it even if
your proprietary music file format is superior. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (09)
|