Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of RdsWipWorldView/PathsToInteroperability

Timestamp:

08/27/08 15:46:59 (16 years ago)

Author:

jbourne (IP: 70.48.152.174)

Comment:

--

RdsWipWorldView/PathsToInteroperability

@@ -14 +14 @@
 = RDS/WIP World View: Paths to Interoperability =
 
-There are also at least three common approaches to interoperability:
+There are also at least three common approaches to interoperability - these are outlined here, making analogy to human languages:
 
-1. Force everyone to speak your language natively.  That
-  means push ISO 15926 definitions out into every software
-  application that counts in your domain and force software
+1. Point to Point: translate directly from any language to every other
+   language as needed.  This approach is costly and error prone for
+   everyone.
 
-  developers to adapt to its structures and way of thinking.
+2. Lingua Franca: collectively identify a language as usefully common
+   and translate only to and from it.   The burden on a lingua franca
+   in terms of solving engineering problems is that it must have the
+   expressive power to represent information from many different sources.
 
-2. Translate from your language to every other language that
-  you need to.  Costly for everyone and a problem that I
-  think ISO 15926 was conceived to redress by the former
-  or the latter options.
+3. Mandated Language: force everyone to speak one language natively.
+   That means push definitions out into every software application
+   in the domain and force software vendors to adapt to its structures
+   and way of thinking.
 
-3. Collectively identify a language as usefully common and
-  translate only to and from it.  And again, ISO 15926 has
-  a role to play here as that common language.
+The RDS/WIP provides support for all of these approaches.  In all
+cases, it provides a place to publish reference data for the language and mappings to and from other languages.
 
-What I think is important though, is that for the latter
-the *cost* of translating peer to peer or peer to common,
-by investing in definitional machinery that can then be
-used to create a cheap, strong translation engine.
-
-If we take the top-down approach and run it to its
-conclusion right down at the FOL level on existing
-templates, and
-
-In one case, you force everyone to speak your language.
-
-
-
-
-
-
+Note however that the mappings themselves must be written in some sort of language, and in many cases, it is the expressive power of at least one of the addressed languages that determines how precise and fidelity-retaining a mapping can be.
 
 ----