1.1.2 Standards and interoperability

From Geostandards

 

Interoperability in schedule

The schedule below shows the context of interoperability and standards. In an animation of 11 minutes, the schedule is explained by a voice-over. The schedule is one of the results of a project that develops professional instruments for interoperability. The results of this project are described at http://www.telin.nl.

Explanation schedule

The references to the schedule above are between [].

Information processing these days usually takes place in more than one single department or organisation. Now-a-days organisations cooperate in chains and networks [chains]. Together they set up electronic files [e files] and electronic offices [front offices] where clients can get a wide variety of services, or they can share basic information in mutual registers [basic registers]. In all of these situations lots of different kinds of information goes back and forth between organisations and the systems they use. But how do you make sure these organisations understand and use the information in the correct way? How do you make sure that they keep their own identity, yet at the same time cooperate as a single unit? The solution is interoperability [interoperability]. Two individual departments’ organisations or systems are seen to be interoperable when they are able to exchange information in a valuable and meaningful way.

A word is enough to the wise, the expression says. However in automation much more is required. In this field explicit agreements [agreements] between the communicating parties are needed, so that they understand what they can expect of each other, what they could do, or have to do for each other. Sometimes these are bilateral agreements, but often agreements are forged between large groups of parties too. In cases like these, we call them standards.

Interoperability is a multi-headed monster. In the land of automation very little is evident. Fortunately organisations can refer to existing agreements [refer to/use again]. If two organisations, for example, want to exchange an electronic order, they can choose from several international order standards and, if requested, they can adapt those standards for their own use.

The content is the most important part of the agreement, [content]. but that is not enough. The agreements have to be managed too [organisation of the management], not only because mutual decisions have to be made but because there needs to be the facility of changing them along the way too. In some cases legislation plays a dominant role here. [legislation]

Agreements are not made to be broken. Their goal is to convince the parties [parties] to set up their processes and systems in such a way that it enables them to be linked, beyond their own barriers. In order to do this, parties can often use mutual or instrumental exchange provisions [infrastructure].

Each of the following aspects is indicated with its own kind of block in the schedule: Motivation, core, content, governance, parties and infrastructure. The last four symbolise the four heads of the monster ‘interoperability’.

Back to the content [content]. The content of an agreement has to ensure that the parties involved really do agree. Easily said, but what do you need to organise? First of all, the parties have to know the meaning of the information they are exchanging [meaning]. If they don’t, it might not be clear what is meant by the word ‘case’: a legal case or a suitcase? When the meaning is clear, the next question is: what is the goal of the exchanged information? [function/service]. What does one party expect of the other after the information has been sent? Is it a question that needs to be answered? Is the receiver expected to take some kind of action and if so, what?

The most important part of an agreement is the meaning and intention which we have discussed, however this does not represent the whole picture. Parties also have to agree on the format in which the information should be exchanged. How advanced is the dialogue between the parties? [dialogue/procedure]? Who takes the initiative? What steps are being taken in the dialogue? In each step of the dialogue a small part of the information package is exchanged: a document. [document format]. But, where can one find a particular piece of information? What is the lay-out of the document?

And still we are not finished! The parties also have to agree on the electronic medium [medium] which they are going to use to exchange the information: Internet standards for example? There might be all kind of conditions restricting the exchange of information [conditions]. Sometimes only certain organisations or systems are allowed to send and receive information. Sometimes it is only allowed in certain situations. Sometimes organisations are only allowed to use the information for specific purposes. And often parties make particular arrangements concerning the security of the exchanged information.

Now we will discuss the management of the agreements [organisation of the management]. Agreements bind parties. This is why it is important to pay attention to mutual decision-making [decision-making]. Who makes the decisions in the agreements? Are only unanimous decisions valid, or are majority decisions valid too? Are there vetoes? How open is the decision-making? The content of the agreement should be managed as well. [content management]. What modifications should we make? And when? How do we make sure that an older version of an agreement is still suitable and dovetails with the other agreements and standards?

An agreement is not very useful when the people who have to stick to it, do not know or understand it. It is therefore important to ensure that the accessibility of agreements and their distribution is handled properly. [accessibility/distribution]. Who can have access to the agreement and who must know the agreement? Can we explain the agreement, to make it easier to conform to? Then, it is important that the agreements are executed. [adoption/observance]. What approach do we use here? Which of the parties do we address first? Do we check whether it is observed? Do we use labels or certification to do this?

So, the management of agreements is a bit of a fuss. Fortunately bilateral agreements can be settled quickly. [only management agreements]. But if more parties are involved, it is necessary to create a separate management organisation to ensure that the management processes do not fall on deaf ears and problems or failures arise. This is why standardisation organisations exist [management organisation].

It is the responsibility of each party to ensure that the agreements in their own environment are observed. Agreements play an important role in the way each party presents itself in its environment or market and it is, therefore, important that each party has an explicit strategy or policy in the field of operability. [interoperability strategy/policy]. Which organisation do I want to exchange information with? What standards does this organisation have? How does it show its influence? And to what portfolio of agreements does it lead [own portfolio of agreements]? No matter what, the point is that each party fits the agreements into its own portfolio of agreements and into its own activities and systems. [operational activities]. Parties often have the opportunity of using common instrumental provisions [infrastructures]. Such infrastructures can offer, for example, a catalogue [service register] of the exchange possibilities that the other parties has, or a translation service between two parties who speak different languages [translation]. In some cases, the infrastructure offers security services, [security] or it takes care of the administration; logging the traffic of information [administration]. In one way or another, the infrastructure has to make sure that the information reaches its destination on time and in an intact form. [logistics]

Once again back to the content [content]. When there are more parties involved in the agreements, there is a major chance they simply do not agree on the content of the agreements. Of course, they can negotiate on the agreements; here power plays a significant role. Apart from this, there are a number of techniques which can be used to reconcile the various wishes and requirements [reconciliation techniques]. We will mention four of them.

If parties do not agree on a particular part of an agreement, you might decide not to include it in the agreement [an abstraction]. The parties may be able to find a solution in a smaller committee or by using an additional agreement. So, in this way, the decision can be made somewhere else or be postponed.

The most drastic way of reconciling is to make them uniform [uniform], in order to ? if necessary by using pressure ?, make one clear choice. This is how we do it, that’s it!

1. The parties involved may also decide to leave some latitude so that they can make their own choices and provide a service which ensures that the translation required between the different parties is achieved [transformation]. This reconciliation technique is not always possible, but sometimes it is. For example, it is possible to make the translation from addresses to post codes and the other way round.

1. Finally, it is possible to leave some leeway in the agreement for choices to be made and to adopt several alternative choices [variation]. For example, the parties could agree to having two ways of exchanging addresses, i.e. with the name of the street plus the number of the house, or with the postal code plus the number of the house. The parties are either asked to (be able) to work with both formats, or, in specific cases, to make a choice between the two variations.

In conclusion; it is clear that interoperability involves a certain amount of time, attention and money [trouble]. Investments in interoperability are, therefore, not achieved without consequences. The benefits of operability, whether these are economic or social benefits [benefit] have to be demonstrated over and over again. Sometimes these improvements are related to efficiency, sometimes they affect quality, however, the benefits often involve specific services or activities which would simply be unthinkable without this level of cooperation … without interoperability.

The scheme and the text above are taken from artikel or Paul Oude Luttighuis, Lex Heerink and Wijnand Derks. This article is part of a series of articles about interoperability, put together in the book Eerlijk zullen we alles delen.

← previous

1 Framework Geo-standards

next →