1. Schema Interoperability Liam Magee Global Cities Institute RMIT University Melbourne, Australia

2. Background ARC involving RMIT, FujiXerox Australia, Common Ground Publishing “The impact of the Semantic Web on Document Management and Print Industries” 3 years – 2006 – 2009 Focus on: – Standards and interoperability in publishing supply chain – Evolving business models – Challenges of customer engagement PhD (part of project): – “The Commensurability of Semantic Web Ontologies”

3. The Semantic Web Proposal for interconnected “web of data” – Began circa 1998 – Facts in formal, logic-based languages – Related to XML, relational databases; also AI research Built on formal semantics, existing WWW infrastructure: – Inferences over one or many “ontologies” (formal schemas)‏ – Necessary and sufficient conditions for class membership – URI's as global unique naming scheme But: – Complex to use in practice – Simpler approaches available – Problem of conflicting “paradigms” or “perspectives”

4. Semantic Web – Linked Data

5. Schemas as Perspectives... Thesis: developed framework and software – To discover background (tacit) knowledge – Applied social science methods to examine: what perspectives underpin schemas? – How to discover this for any schema? Look at online sources: debates in forums, mailing lists Examine cultures... Schemas treated as cultural artefacts Trying to discover underlying conceptual paradigms – Framework, software: apparatus for doing this...

6. Schemas as Perspectives...

7. Commensurability of Schemas Schemas, standards interoperability depend on context - no silver bullet solutions Schema matching algorithms available Translation of schema meanings: – Interpretating schema terms, concepts – Understanding background cultures – Analysing purpose, context of translation So frameworks can supplement: – Help evaluate feasibility, cost, scope of work

8. Culture Schema Translation Scenario Schema 1 Schema 2 Translator Degree of Commensurability Context of Translation Estimate of work Problem for Translation

9. Results so far... Challenges with constructing standards – Rival standards: case study on document formats – Microsoft and the world: OOXML vs ODF)‏ – Clearly vested economic, political interests on both sides – Other reasons: Methodological: different approaches to classifying... Teleological: different purposes to classifying... Operational: different uses of classifications, data... Semantic: different terminologies, “language games” Theoretical: differing paradigms, perspectives

10. Community Sector Example “Service” paradigm: Service provider Client Client relationship “Community development” paradigm: Facilitator Community Community engagement relationship Not always interchangeable: – reflect different underlying commitments, practices, vocabularies

11. More schemas – about schemas – Cultural context is helpful – but leads to endless interpretation? – Useful to develop taxonomies about schemas: How are schemas developed? What methods are used? (Process)‏ What motivates their development? (Purpose)‏ How are they used? (Practice)‏ What underlying theories are used? (Perspective)‏ – Accompanying methods, analytic tools, software – Framework designed as “practioner's guide” to help match schemas – pragmatic, heuristic, “guiding” emphasis

12. Some Notes on Interoperability... Dialogue, “principle of charity” Costly: requires workshops, committees, time “Minimax” strategy: minimal interoperability for maximal benefit “Orthogonality”: different perspectives around common, consensual semantic core Standardisation, interoperability: foster and restrain organisational innovation

13. Cycles of Standardisation / Differentiation Initial differentiation: – time, cost constraints, lack of awareness of other schemas Drive towards standardisation: – sharing information, improved queries / reporting, consolidated client histories New drives towards differentiation: – failed interoperability efforts; new, incompatible systems; new operating environments, classificatory schemes History of document formats good example

14. Contra Interoperability Loss of “local” representations of meaning Conflicting interests Trust Legality Lack of flexibility Inhibits innovation Interoperability not end in itself – subject to intra- and inter-organisational rationales Criteria, toolkit useful for assessing pros and cons of interoperability

15. Thank you...