Interoperability

Kale, L. V., Bhandarkar, M., Jagathesan, N., Krishnan, S., Yelon, J. Converse An interoperable framework for parallel programming. In Proceedings of the 10th international parallel processing symposium. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, 1996. 

This manager requested quantitative results, so the analyst must estimate the probability of each failure or error included in the event tree. Data for all the failures and errors in this particular problem are available in tables in the Handbook, Swain and Guttman (1983). The analyst must modify these data as necessary to account for specific characteristics of the work situation, such as stress levels, equipment design features, and interoperator dependencies. Table 5.1 summarizes the data used in this problem. 

Information to learn more about Algor s complete line of CAD/CAE interoperability,... 

As stated on the OMG (Object Management) website (http //www.omg. org/), a lack of data standards results in data conversions, loss of information, lack of interoperability, etc. Current standards du jour are XML (Extensible Markup Language) [17], LSID (Life Sciences Identifiers), and now the RDF (Resource Description Framework) from the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), which is extensible though hard to implement. Substantial work on OO (Object Oriented) modeling of life science data types takes place at the OMG s LSR (Life Sciences Research) group—this is discussed below. 

Data standards and interoperable systems. When interoperability is in place, standard, automated software tools for systematically analyzing the data can be constructed. 

It is essential to have high-quality data in place for interoperable systems to function efficiently. Standard data structures can only be used to full advantage if they are combined with standard terminology for values populating a data element. Yet there are many potential pitfalls in data collection and configuration for analysis. Some of the more common pitfalls are discussed here, but this list is by no means comprehensive. 

Although 500,000 individuals were enrolled in clinical trials that were submitted to the FDA during 1990-1995 [10], the lack of a repository of clinical trial data, standardized data, and interoperable systems precludes us from efficiently tapping and reanalyzing these data. This missed opportunity underscores the need for standardization and interoperable systems, as discussed above (see Section 27.4.1 on data standards and interoperable systems). 

Component kit architecture Describes the common elements of the way a collection of components work together, such as standard interaction protocols. It is needed to allow a variety of developers to build interoperable components that can be assembled into families of products. 

Component-based development The main emphasis of component-based development (CBD) is on building families of products from kits of interoperable components. CBD separates design into three major areas ... 

A component architecture defines a kit by establishing the conventions of interoperation, which are represented by connectors (see Section 1.9.3). 

In component-based development, you must constmct software from components whose insides you can t see you must treat them as black boxes. When you constmct your own components, you m ust build them so that they will work with a wide variety of others even as their internal implementations change or are upgraded. Components that aren t interoperable have little value. For that reason, we are interested in separating external specification of behavior from the internal works. (This has been the situation in hardware for years that it s novel to our profession should perhaps be an issue of some embarrassment for us.)... 

Well, maybe. In the new world of component-based development, the successful components will be those that interoperate with many others. Each interface will be designed to couple with a range of other components and must be specified in a way that admits any component with the right behavior and excludes others. A designer aiming to meet a spec should be confident that the component works and should be able to justify that belief. 

Large-grained components are becoming a practical part of an enterprise component strategy. These components interact with one another as much as their smaller cousins do, and they must be analyzed and designed so that they interoperate as expected. 

If we are to build systems by assembling components, we need a set of standards that are agreed to by component developers so that these components can interoperate and reduce the development burden of common tasks. Many of these issues would need to be addressed even without components, but the need for standardization would be less. There are three broad categories of standards horizontal, vertical, and connectors (see Figure 10.4). 

Known platform or architectural constraints Machines, operating systems, distribution, middleware, legacy systems, and interoperability requirements, all captured by a package structure and collaborations... 

Edwards, J.L. Lane, M.A. Nielsen, E.S. (2000A) Interoperability of biodiversity databases biodiversity information on every desktop. Science, 289, 2312-4. 

Burke, T.J., Interoperability in automation InTech with Industrial Computing 2003, 50, 43-45. 

---