2004-10-0520944 Rationale Overview, F. Farance 1 Rationale Overview For 20944 Series Frank Farance, Farance Inc. +1 212 486 4700.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IEEE PAPI Learner, Draft 8, F. Farance, ©2001 Farance Inc./Edutool1 Public and Private Information (PAPI) For Learners (PAPI Learner)
Advertisements

Proposal for Using ISO 11404, F. Farance 1 ISO for Data Models Frank Farance, Farance Inc
Siebel Web Services Siebel Web Services March, From
Overview of Web Services
31242/32549 Advanced Internet Programming Advanced Java Programming
Web Service Ahmed Gamal Ahmed Nile University Bioinformatics Group
Status Report of the Study Group on MDR/MFI Implemenations ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32/WG2 Interim Meeting Santa Fe, NM, USA, November 11~15, 2013 Dongwon Jeong,
Z39.50 and the Web ZIG July 2000 Poul Henrik Jørgensen, Danish Bibliographic Centre,
Interoperability Principles in the Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS) Presented 13 March 2006 at eGY in Boulder, CO by: Eliot Christian,
Scale Up Access to your 4GL Application using Web Services
1 Introduction to XML. XML eXtensible implies that users define tag content Markup implies it is a coded document Language implies it is a metalanguage.
1 Introduction to SOA. 2 The Service-Oriented Enterprise eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Web services XML-based technologies for messaging, service description,
Chapter 2 Data Models Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and Management, Seventh Edition, Rob and Coronel.
Web Services Andrea Miller Ryan Armstrong Alex. Web services are an emerging technology that offer a solution for providing a common collaborative architecture.
Web Service What exactly are Web Services? To put it quite simply, they are yet another distributed computing technology (like CORBA, RMI, EJB, etc.).
Processing of structured documents Spring 2003, Part 6 Helena Ahonen-Myka.
Future of MDR - ISO/IEC Metadata Registries (MDR) Larry Fitzwater, SC 32 WG 2 Convener Computer Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May.
Tutorial on ISO/IEC Series Metadata Registries Interoperability and Bindings Open Forum 2005 on Metadata Registries Session time here April 2005.
Aurora: A Conceptual Model for Web-content Adaptation to Support the Universal Accessibility of Web-based Services Anita W. Huang, Neel Sundaresan Presented.
SC32 WG2 Metadata Standards Tutorial Metadata Registries and Big Data WG2 N1945 June 9, 2014 Beijing, China.
Interoperability Tests for IEC Scott Neumann November 12, 2009.
Slide 1 Wolfram Höpken RMSIG Reference Model Special Interest Group Second RMSIG Workshop Methodology and Process Wolfram Höpken.
T Network Application Frameworks and XML Web Services and WSDL Sasu Tarkoma Based on slides by Pekka Nikander.
Object and component “wiring” standards This presentation reviews the features of software component wiring and the emerging world of XML-based standards.
SC25/WG1/N1007, Presentation on Command/Control, ©2002 Farance Inc. 1 Presentation to SC25/WG1 On Interoperability ( ) and DCTP (Command/Control.
The Semantic Web Service Shuying Wang Outline Semantic Web vision Core technologies XML, RDF, Ontology, Agent… Web services DAML-S.
Bigger Perspectives on Metadata, and MDR/MFI ©2009 Farance Inc.1 Bigger Perspectives on Metadata — Structural Ideas for MDR/MFI Series (SC32/WG2/N1336)
1 Technologies for distributed systems Andrew Jones School of Computer Science Cardiff University.
Architecting Web Services Unit – II – PART - III.
Web Services based e-Commerce System Sandy Liu Jodrey School of Computer Science Acadia University July, 2002.
The Final Study Period Report on MFI 6: Model registration procedure SC32WG2 Meeting, Sydney May 26, 2008 H. Horiuchi, Keqing He, Doo-Kwon Baik SC32WG2.
Interoperability Framework Overview Health Information Technology (HIT) Standards Committee June 24, 2010 Presented by: Douglas Fridsma, MD, PhD Acting.
The JISC IE Metadata Schema Registry and IEEE LOM Application Profiles Pete Johnston UKOLN, University of Bath CETIS Metadata & Digital Repositories SIG,
WEB BASED DATA TRANSFORMATION USING XML, JAVA Group members: Darius Balarashti & Matt Smith.
Web Services Based on SOA: Concepts, Technology, Design by Thomas Erl MIS 181.9: Service Oriented Architecture 2 nd Semester,
AUKEGGS Architecturally Significant Issues (that we need to solve)
SC25/WG1/N1028, Presentation on DCTP, ©2003 Farance Inc.1 Presentation to SC25/WG1 On DCTP Status Presentation By Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
9 th Open Forum on Metadata Registries Harmonization of Terminology, Ontology and Metadata 20th – 22nd March, 2006, Kobe Japan. Presentation Title: Day:
Frank Farance, Farance Inc
Semantic Web Technologies Research Topics and Projects discussion Brief Readings Discussion Research Presentations.
Potential standardization items for the cloud computing in SC32 1 WG2 N1665 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Plenary Meeting, Berlin, Germany, June 2012 Sungjoon Lim,
Web Services Presented By : Noam Ben Haim. Agenda Introduction What is a web service Basic Architecture Extended Architecture WS Stacks.
1 Web Services Web and Database Management System.
Preliminary Ocean Project Page 1 WGISS SG May 15, C. Caspar G. Tandurella P. Goncalves G. Fallourd I. Petiteville Preliminary Ocean Project Phase.
Presentation on MDAS API, WD1 ©2001 Farance Inc.1 MDAS API Presentation On WD1 Frank Farance, Farance Inc
Overview of SC 32/WG 2 Standards Projects Supporting Semantics Management Open Forum 2005 on Metadata Registries 14:45 to 15:30 13 April 2005 Larry Fitzwater.
Metadata : an overview XML and Educational Metadata, SBU, London, 10 July 2001 Pete Johnston UKOLN, University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY UKOLN is supported.
Semantic Phyloinformatic Web Services Using the EvoInfo Stack Speaker: John Harney LSDIS Lab, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia Mentor(s):
Issues in Ontology-based Information integration By Zhan Cui, Dean Jones and Paul O’Brien.
Metadata and Technology/Architecture Working Groups DLF Aquifer Project DLF Fall Forum Providence, RI November 14, 2008.
SDMX IT Tools Introduction
1 G52IWS: Web Services Chris Greenhalgh. 2 Contents The World Wide Web Web Services example scenario Motivations Basic Operational Model Supporting standards.
Presentation on xx WD3 ©2002 Farance Inc.1 MDAS API Presentation On xx WD3 Frank Farance, Farance Inc
1 Service Oriented Architecture SOA. 2 Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Definition  SOA is an architecture paradigm that is gaining recently a significant.
Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange SDMX Metadata Common Vocabulary Status of project and issues ( ) Marco Pellegrino Eurostat
Interoperability in GSDI: Standards, Solutions, and Futures Douglas Nebert GSDI Secretariat.
Copyright 2007, Information Builders. Slide 1 iWay Web Services and WebFOCUS Consumption Michael Florkowski Information Builders.
IEEE , Platform and Media Profiles, F. Farance, ©2000 Edutool.Com 1 Platform and Media Profiles Presentation Frank Farance,
Digital Information Technology Testbed ©2000 Farance Inc.1 Digital Information Technology Testbed Conformity Assessment Activities
A centre of expertise in digital information management UKOLN is supported by: IEMSR, the Information Environment & Metadata Application.
XML and Distributed Applications By Quddus Chong Presentation for CS551 – Fall 2001.
By Jeremy Burdette & Daniel Gottlieb. It is an architecture It is not a technology May not fit all businesses “Service” doesn’t mean Web Service It is.
Developing our Metadata: Technical Considerations & Approach Ray Plante NIST 4/14/16 NMI Registry Workshop BIPM, Paris 1 …don’t worry ;-) or How we concentrate.
T Network Application Frameworks and XML Web Services and WSDL Sasu Tarkoma Based on slides by Pekka Nikander.
Metadata Standards for Statistical Classifications
Wsdl.
Chapter 9 Web Services: JAX-RPC, WSDL, XML Schema, and SOAP
Session 2: Metadata and Catalogues
Presentation transcript:

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 1 Rationale Overview For Series Frank Farance, Farance Inc

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 2 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 3 What is a Rationale? Explanations of: –questions: issues raised during development –decisions: import development decisions –design: methods/modules implied –historical data: inputs that influenced process Example: see C rationale – –click on “Rationale” (third bullet)

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 4 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 5 Why Create A Rationale? Important for standards work: –Participants come and go over the years –Reduces learning curve for new participants –Can refresh memories of “old-timers” :-) –Helps avoid unnecessarily revisiting issues –Helps build user communities by answering questions that aren’t obvious to outsiders –Can help document future issues Outside of standards work: –Also used in software development, typically called “design rationale”

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 6 Who Uses Rationales? Important for large projects Positive example: ISO C prog. language: –Few defect reports / request for interpretation –Large acceptance, broad interoperability Negative example: ISO C++ prog. language –Appox. 700 defects (most are interdependent) –Lack of interoperability, lack of adoption Google with >6000 hits: rationale “iso standard”

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 7 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 8 Rationale for Series The series “road map”: 29 parts Overall the approach is a “building blocks” approach, with the following highlights: –Why create a single monolithic standard? Let users pick and choose what they want –Why create extra implementation burden? Structure allows implementers to create only what they need –Describe what to implement, not how Supports wide range of implementations: from simple (low cost) to complex (high performance)

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 9 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 10 Prototypical Uses of Examples of using 20944: –Extracting value domain, values, and meanings –Extracting data elements and their dependent data element concepts and value domains –Walking classification schemes to discover and inspect administered items –Copying metadata from one registry to another Applications of these examples: –Web interfaces, database application support, support for data stewards / designers, precise communication among stakeholders

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 11 Example Taken From Extracting a value domain from a metadata registry:

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 12 Example Of 20944, Then ISO Metadata Exchange, Then Data Exchange User Portal Services/AppsWeb Access User Interface, Browser Apps, Services Info/ Knowledge Base Data Server Info/ Knowledge Base Data Server Queries (e.g. via web) Information Exchange Portal, Front End #3: Data Exchange #2: ISO/IEC Metadata #1: ISO/IEC MDIB API

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 13 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 14 Implementation Variants (Variety Control) Standard describes what, not how Need to support a variety of implementations –Low performance and high performance Shouldn’t expect all implementations to be high cost Should permit high cost implementations to differentiate themselves: quality of implementation –Spawns innovation –Should be OS/language/coding/protocol neutral

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 15 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 16 Standards and Methodologies Employed JTC1 Directives: –Annex J: Guidelines for API Standardization –Describes much about API standardization, which the series follows Standards –Uses (Language-Independent Procedure Calling) and (General Purpose Datatypes) –Language-independent specifications, as recommended by JTC1 Directives

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 17 Standards and Methodologies Employed Breakdown into Parts –Building blocks correspond the “conformity” boundaries –Why require an implementation to support (say) both C and JavaScript when only one is used? –Separate parts allow clear, unambiguous references to requirements and declarations of conformity (e.g., Part 41 is for C, Part 44 is for JavaScript). –Separate areas for codings, APIs, and protocols — important to keep separate (next slide)

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 18 ISO/IEC Family of Standards — Dependencies Among the Parts LDAP Protocol Binding Common Conformance Provisions General Usage Common Vocabulary Common Data Structures Semi-Structure Aggregation XML Coding Binding Common Coding Provisions DIVP Coding Binding ASN.1 Coding Binding PHP API Binding Common API Provisions C API Binding C++ API Binding Java API Binding ECMAscript API Binding Perl API Binding LISP API Binding ODBC Protocol Bindings DCTP Protocol Bindings SOAP Protocol Binding WSDL Protocol Binding JMS Protocol Binding Framework MDR Attribute Map Profile For MDR URIs For MDR Navigation Common Profiles Provisions Common Protocol Provisions

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 19 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 20 General Interoperability Issues Expect to write code and work on many implementations Expect to share data and have it understood Expect to users will have “extensions” to data

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 21 Building Standards In Several Steps Maintenance Development Review Amendments: 2-3 years Revisions: 4-5 years Consensus Building User/Vendor/ Institutional/ Industry “Extensions” “Extensions” Become Input To Next Revision Of Standard Industry-Relevant, Widely-Adopted “Extensions” The “Standard”

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 22 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 23 API Framework Provide right level of abstraction –as per JTC1 Directives –Not broadening scope, just getting to right level of abstraction to permit wide implementations Key features: –Handle-object paradigm –Two-step connect paradigm –Open security paradigm –Open nomadicity (connectedness) paradigm –Read-write paradigm –Supports multiple datatypes –No requirement (yet) for streaming

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 24 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 25 Coding Framework Support neutral description of data (Part 20) Commonality of semantics because of neutral description Rule-based approach permits a variety of implementations –Example: for Part 21, XML implementations can be based upon DTDs, XML Schema, or custom code

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 26 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 27 Separation of Bindings Separates technologies from semantics Allows new technologies to be introduced over time Problems when they are kept together, e.g.: –HL7 was too tied to protocols Made data interchange difficult –OMG was too tied to CORBA (API/protocol) Missed out on XML technologies

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 28 A Framework for Harmonized/Consistent... Bindings: Codings, APIs, Protocols Encodings: Calling Conventions, Data Formats, Communication Layers Topic-Specific Informative Wording Topic-Specific Normative Wording Cross-Topic Codings: XML Cross-Topic APIs Informative Wording Cross-Topic APIs: Normative Wording Java, JavaScript, C/C++, Perl, Tcl, VB Various Standards Cross-Topic Protocols e.g.: Session Layers Various Standards Requirements Functionality Conceptual Model Semantics Bindings: CodingsBindings: Protocols Encodings: Various Communication Layers Encodings: Data Formats Bindings: APIs Encodings: Calling Conventions

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 29 Codings, APIs, Protocols — All Three Are Required Semantics Bindings: APIs Bindings: Codings Bindings: Protocols - Std APIs may be implemented via std or proprietary Protocols - Std Protocols may be accessed by std or proprietary APIs - Both std APIs/Protocols improve wide area interoperability - Std APIs may use std or proprietary Codings - Std Codings may be used by std or proprietary APIs - Both std APIs/Codings improve portable apps/data - Std Protocols may use std or proprietary Codings - Std Codings may be exchanged via std or proprietary Protocols - Both std Protocols/Codings improve system interoperability Harmonized standard APIs, Codings, and Protocols promote: - Application portability - Data portability - Multi-vendor, “open” solutions - Wide area, end-to-end interoperability Prioritizing The Development Of Standards for Codings, APIs, and Protocols

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 30 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 31 Separation of Identifiers Keep normative wording all in Part 81 Allows for use/reuse in other parts (URIs)

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 32 Overview What is a “Rationale”? Why create one? Who uses them? Rationale for series: –Prototypical Uses (use cases for interoperability) –Implementation Variants (variety control) –Standards methodologies employed –General interoperability issues API Framework Coding Framework –Separation of Bindings –Separation of Identifiers –Separation of Terminology

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 33 Separation of Terminology Keep normative wording all in Part 2 Simplifies mantenance

Rationale Overview, F. Farance 34 Conclusions Should provide more details on “Rationale” Implementers’ site created on SourceForge for open-source implementations of 20944