Integration V interoperability

Matt Deacon — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:52:00 GMT

At a recent NCC workshop on we spent a while discussing what is meant in terms of Integration and Interoperability. Both heavily used terms in the industry but that actually are hard to define once you come down to it. The used Wikipedia definitions for “Joined up” and “Seamless” and as such suggested that:

Integration equivalent to “Joined Up”

Interoperability equivalent to “Seamless”

I’ve looked for these definitions on Wikipedia and must confess I couldn’t find them. Having said that I am not sure why they didn’t just look up Integration or Interoperability directly – that said the definitions leave you with wondering why there are two words at all?

Digital integration is the idea that data or information on any given electronic device can be read or manipulated by another device using a standard format.

Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged (IEEE)

Wikipedia does go on to say that Interoperability is the capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of business proceduresall of which doesn’t add much clarity.

They also include the ISO/IEC 2382-01 definition that adds ... in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units” which could lead back to the ‘seamless’ interpretation which to my mind is also a concern.

Personally, I don’t think any of these fully capture the essence of Integration and Interoperability and come to that matter, I use them so frequently that I am now not sure how I would define them myself!

Anyway, by the end of that part of the workshop I did end up with a mind map from what was discussed that I think provides quite a good coverage of the issues that integration interoperability encompass.

Thoughts welcomed!

Oh yes, and as for the rest of the workshop ... that’s more than enough for another blog but I need to do some more thinking on that first!

But if you’re interested take a look at the NCC EA-SE professionalism programme and join in the fun!

Does Microsoft get Interoperability?

Matt Deacon — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:06:00 GMT

Working in the Architect space interoperability is never far from your door especially given the advances in communications, performance etc.

I had the great fortune to meet up with an co-host a round table with the legendary Jean Paolo, GM Jean Paoli, General Manager Interoperability and XML Architecture, and Thomas Robertson, General Manager, Standards with several members of the IT Press.

It was a highly enlightening session that went through the great strides that Microsoft has made to ensure that interoperability is centre stage in all that the organisation does.

Thomas started by identifying four characteristics for incorporating interoperability within Microsoft:

1. Building it into the products from the ground up. An obvious starting point but nonetheless fundamental.

2. Collaboration with customers, partners and competitors to ensure interoperability

3. Open Access to technology through three primary vehicles

a. Commercial licensing enabling partners to develop against technologies at an early stage

b. Community programs to build awareness and exposure

c. Open specification program where formats such as VHD, WS are placed.

4. Standardisation

In June 2006 Microsoft launched the Interoperability Executive Customer Council.

In September 2006 the Open Specification program was launched

In November the Interoperability Vendor Alliance was established.

In December the ECMA Open XML Specification was successfully ratified.

This really demonstrates what an organisation can really do once it takes interoperability to the heart of the organisation as has happened at Microsoft.

However, this is where things got interesting; we had hit the central issue which I guess was on everyone’s mind; this being the recent issues regarding the submission of the Open XML standard to the ISO by Ecma and the concerns that have been raised given the existence of the Open Document Format (ODF).

There is much already out on the web on this and it was good to hear some of the issues first hand. The web is beautiful in many ways but in so far as being able to generate mistruths it is quite amazing.

The discussion was quite wider ranging covering the issues in date formats and language issues that simply prove not to be real issues at all. All the way through to some of the differences and features of Open XML such as custom data, language support and long term preservation of old document formats for example.

This is a major area of debate where Microsoft and it’s concerted efforts around openness and interoperability are genuinely without reproach. It has answered the governments of the world criticisms by providing a rich, open, flexible format for its documents. It has sought standardisation through the appropriate consultation channels only to find its way barred due to the persistent lobbying of some individuals whose objectives are anti-competitive in the extreme.

The next 5 months will prove to be an interesting period where the standards processes and the standards bodies set to represent them will be thoroughly tested I have no doubt. And my recommendation is to explore the issues yourself to determine the rights and wrongs however, it is not sufficient to prevent a specification purely on technical grounds. These issues as always can be resolved.

For more information on the www.microsoft.com/interop is the starting place to gain information relating to the Microsoft position along with the open letter from Jean and Thomas that they recently issued entitled Interoperability, Choice and Open XML.

Matt Deacon's digestive blog : Interoperability

Integration V interoperability

Does Microsoft get Interoperability?