ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
The Journal of Systems and Software
jo u r n al h om e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j s s
A review on E-business Interoperability Frameworks
Reza Rezaei
a,b,∗, Thiam Kian Chiew
a, Sai Peck Lee
aaDepartmentofSoftwareEngineering,FacultyofComputerScience&InformationTechnology,UniversityofMalaya,50603KualaLumpur,Malaysia
bDepartmentofComputerEngineering,SavehBranch,IslamicAzadUniversity,Saveh,Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received8March2012
Receivedinrevisedform1December2013 Accepted4February2014
Availableonline17February2014
Keywords:
E-business Interoperability Framework
a b s t r a c t
Interoperabilityframeworkspresentasetofassumptions,concepts,values,andpracticesthatconsti- tuteamethodofdealingwithinteroperabilityissuesintheelectronicbusiness(e-business)context.
Achievinginteroperabilityinthee-businessgeneratesnumerousbenefits.Thus,interoperabilityframe- worksarethemaincomponentofe-businessactivities.Thispaperdescribestheexistinginteroperability frameworksfore-business,andperformsacomparativeanalysisamongtheirfindingstodeterminethe similaritiesanddifferencesintheirphilosophyandimplementation.Thisanalysisyieldsasetofrecom- mendationsforanypartythatisopentotheideaofcreatingorimprovinganE-businessInteroperability Framework.
©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
The term“e-business” generally refers tothe application of information and communication technologies(ICT) to improve business activities, including providing or enhancing services andmanagingbusinessoperations(Amor,2000;Beynon-Davies, 2004;Gerstner,2002).Inthee-businesscontext,applicationsand software systems should be interoperable (Berre et al., 2007a;
Parazoglou,2006).InteroperabilityenablesICTsystemstofacilitate informationexchangeandpromoteservicecompatibilitybetween systems(Jardim-Goncalvesetal.,2013;Mattiello-Franciscoetal., 2012;Truexetal.,1999;Zwegers,2003).Therefore,interoperability inthee-businesscontexthasbecomeacriticalissue(Novakouski andLewis,2012;Watch,2005).
Interoperabilityinthee-businesscontexthasmultipledefini- tions(Kosanke,2006;Levineetal.,2003;Morrisetal.,2004a),such asinteroperabilityisdefinedas“Interoperabilitymeanstheabil- ityofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)systems andofthebusinessprocessestheysupporttoexchangedataand toenablethesharingofinformationandknowledge”(European- Commission,2010;Ralytéetal.,2008;Sourounietal.,2007).
The following four definitions of interoperability have been givenbyIEEE:(1)“Theabilityoftwoormoresystemsorelements
∗Correspondingauthorat:DepartmentofSoftwareEngineering,FacultyofCom- puterScience&InformationTechnology,UniversityofMalaya,50603KualaLumpur, Malaysia.Tel.:+60176834318.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](R.Rezaei), [email protected](T.K.Chiew),[email protected](S.P.Lee).
toexchangeinformationandtousetheinformationthathavebeen exchanged”(BreitfelderandMessina,2000;Geracietal.,1991).(2)
“Thecapabilityforunitsofequipmenttoworkefficientlytogether toprovideusefulfunctions”(Radatzetal.,1990).(3)“Thecapability –promotedbutnotguaranteed–achievedthroughjointconfor- mancewithagivensetofstandards,thatenablesheterogeneous equipments,generallybuiltbyvariousvendors,toworktogether inanetworkenvironment”(BreitfelderandMessina,2000;Radatz etal.,1990).(4)“Theabilityoftwoormoresystemsorcomponents toexchangeandusetheexchangedinformationinaheterogeneous network”(BreitfelderandMessina,2000;Radatzetal.,1990).
TheATHENAprojectadoptstheIEEEdefinitionof interoper- abilityas“Theabilityoftwoormoresystemsorcomponentsto exchangeinformation andtousetheinformationthathasbeen exchanged”(ATHENA,2005a;Geracietal.,1991;Hilliard,2000;
Ruggaber,2005).
Inthee-businesscontext,“Interoperabilitymeanstheabilityof informationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)systemsandof thebusinessprocessestheysupporttoexchangedataandtoenable thesharingofinformationandknowledge”(BenguriaandSantos, 2008;European-Commission,2004;Hueppi,2008).
Achieving e-business interoperability generates numerous benefits (Carney and Oberndorf, 2004; Choi and Whinston, 2000; European-Communities, 2008; Poppel, 1987), such as improvedefficiency,transparency,accountability,and access,as wellascost effectiveservicecoordination (Curts andCampbell, 1999; Novakouski and Lewis, 2012; Schade, 2005). Lack of interoperabilitycouldcosttheindustryahugeamountofmoney (ATHENA,2007;Ruggaber,2005).Initsinvestigation,theYankee GroupintheUnitedStatesrevealedthatsolvinginteroperability http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.02.004
0164-1212/©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
problemsaccounted for 40%of ICT projectcostsin majority of leadingmanufacturingindustries(Kerravala,2002).
Attaininginteroperabilityrequiresresolutionatseveraldistinct levels.AccordingtoCarneyandOberndorf(2004),Chen(2006),de NormalisationandfürNormung(2011),Heiler(1995),Kasunicand Anderson(2004),Levineetal.(2003),Morrisetal.(2004b),Munk (2002),therearefourlevelsofinteroperability.Theinteroperability levelsaretechnical,syntactic,semantic,andorganizationalinter- operability.
(1)Technical interoperability is achieved among communications–electronics systems or items of communications–electronics equipment when services or information could be exchanged directly and satisfactorily betweenthemandtheirusers(NovakouskiandLewis,2012).
Inreferringtospecificcases,theinteroperabilitydegreemust be defined (Kinder, 2003; Kosanke, 2006). Technical Inter- operability is typically associated with hardware/software components,systems,andplatformsthatenablemachine-to- machine communication.This type of interoperabilityoften focuses on communication protocolsand the infrastructure requiredforthoseprotocolstofunction(Rezaeietal.,2013;
VanderVeerandWiles,2008).
(2)Syntacticinteroperabilityisdefinedastheabilitytoexchange data.Syntacticinteroperabilityisgenerallyassociatedwithdata formats.Themessagestransferredbycommunicationprotocols shouldpossessawell-definedsyntaxandencoding,evenifonly intheformofbit-tables(Rezaeietal.,2014a;VanderVeerand Wiles,2008).
(3)Semantic interoperability is defined asthe ability tooperate onthatdataaccordingtoagreed-uponsemantics(Lewisand Wrage,2006).Semanticinteroperabilityisnormallyrelatedto thedefinitionofcontent,anddealswiththehumanratherthan machineinterpretationofthiscontent.Thus,interoperabilityat thisleveldenotesthatacommonunderstandingexistsbetween peopleregardingthedefinitionofthecontent(information) beingexchanged(Guijarro,2009;HallandKoukoulas,2008;
VanderVeerandWiles,2008).
(4)Organizationalinteroperabilitypertainstothecapabilityoforga- nizationstoeffectivelycommunicateandtransfermeaningful data (information) despitethe use of a variety of informa- tionsystemsoversignificantlydifferenttypesofinfrastructure, possibly across various geographic regions and cultures.
Organizationalinteroperabilityreliesonthesuccessfulinter- operability of thetechnical, syntactic,and semantic aspects (Gionisetal.,2007a;Rezaei etal.,2014b;VanderVeer and Wiles,2008).
Therefore,asamultidimensionalconcept,interoperabilitycan be viewed from numerous perspectives and approached from various directions (Rezaei and Shams, 2008b). A framework is necessarytoreconcilealltheseperspectives,approaches,anddirec- tions,whicharefrequentlydifferent.Moreover,aframeworkisa practicaltoolforcomparingconcepts,principles,methods,stan- dards,andmodelsinaparticularrealm.Interoperabilityframework isspecificallyamechanismforenablinginteroperabilitybetween entitiesthatmutuallypursueanobjective(Javanbakhtetal.,2008;
Kajan, 2011; Kuziemsky and Weber-Jahnke, 2009; Rezaei and Shams,2008a).Therefore,interoperabilitymustberecognizedand conveyedviaaframework(Chen,2009;LegnerandWende,2006).
TheEuropeanInteroperabilityFrameworkdefinesaninteroper- abilityframeworkasfollows:“Aninteroperabilityframeworkcan bedefinedasasetofstandardsandguidelinesthatdescribesthe wayinwhichorganizationshaveagreed,orshouldagree,tointer- actwitheachother.Aninteroperabilityframeworkis,therefore, notastaticdocumentandmayhavetobeadaptedovertimeas
technologies,standardsandadministrativerequirementschange”
(European-Commission,2004).
TheATHENAprojectdefinesaninteroperabilityframeworkas follows:“Aninteroperabilityframeworkprovidesasetofassump- tions, concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewingand addressing interoperabilityissues” (Lillehagen and Solheim,2004).
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkconstitutesthecor- nerstone for resolving interoperability issues in thee-business context.Theseframeworksfurtherprovidetherequiredmethod- ologicalsupporttoanincreasingnumberofprojectsrelatedtothe interoperabilityofenterpriseapplicationsandsoftwaresystemsto enhancethemanagementoftheircomplexityandrisk,andensure thattheybringthepromisedaddedvalue(LillehagenandSolheim, 2004;Zutshi,2010).
In thisdirection,this paper presentstheexisting E-business Interoperability Framework (Interoperability Development for EnterpriseApplicationandSoftwareFramework,ATHENAInterop- erabilityFramework,EnterpriseInteroperabilityFramework,and GridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFramework),andpro- videsanoverviewoftheirmainconceptsandrecommendations.
Additionally, thispaper performs a comparativeanalysisofthe existingE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworktodeterminethe similaritiesanddifferencesintheirphilosophyandimplementa- tion.Thisanalysisyieldsasetofrecommendationsforanyparty thatis opentotheidea ofcreatingorimprovinganE-business InteroperabilityFramework.
Thestructureofthepaperisasfollows:inSection2theinter- operability issuesare outlined.Anintroductiontotheavailable E-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkispresentedinSection3.
Section4comparestheinteroperabilityframeworksunderstudy onthebasisoftheinteroperabilityissuesproposedinSection2.
AdiscussiononthefindingsisconductedinSection5leadingto conclusionsinSection6.
2. Interoperabilityissues
Thissectiondescribesa setofinteroperabilityissues (enter- priseinteroperabilityscientific areas)observedintheresultsof theFP7 ENSEMBLEproject(Koussouriset al., 2011).The inter- operabilityissues arecategorized intofourdifferentgranularity levels.Theinteroperabilityissuesthatbelongtoahighergranular- itylevelareregardedassuper-setsofinteroperabilityissuesthat belonginalowerlevel(Koussourisetal.,2011).Accordingtothe fourgranularitylevels,Fig.1illustratesanoverviewoftheiden- tifiedinteroperabilityissues.Eachinteroperabilityissueisfurther detailedinthefollowingsections.Itisrequiredtonotethatthe proposedinteroperabilityissues(scientificareas)aimtopromote morefocusedandconcreteresearchattemptstowardsthegoalof establishinginteroperableenterprisesystems,astheybelongtoa smallerabstractionlevelofthatofthefourfundamentalinterop- erabilitylayersadaptedbyEuropeanInteroperabilityFramework (European-Commission,2004,2010;Koussourisetal.,2011).
Inaccordancewiththescopeofthispaperandinalignmentwith Koussourisetal.(2011)(Fig.1),thecomparativeanalysisofthe existingE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkwillbeperformed, andadditionallyextendedover:
•The first granularity level of interoperability issues con- sists of data interoperability, process interoperability, rules interoperability,objectsinteroperability,softwaresystemsinter- operability,aswellasculturalinteroperability.
•Thesecondgranularitylevelofinteroperabilityissuesfocuseson
Fig.1. Interoperabilityissues.
◦Knowledgeinteroperability,whichconsistsofelementscom- ingoutofdatainteroperability,processinteroperability,rules interoperabilityandculturalinteroperability.
◦Servicesinteroperability,whichincorporatesfactsfromprocess interoperability, data interoperability, rules interoperability andsoftwaresystemsinteroperability.
◦Socialnetworksinteroperability,consistingofelementscoming outofculturalinteroperabilityanddatainteroperability,and
◦Electronicidentifyinteroperability,whichisstronglyrelated withobjectsinteroperability,softwaresystemsinteroperability andrulesinteroperability.
•The third granularity level of interoperability issues includes cloudinteroperability,whichtakeselementsfromservicesinter- operability,knowledgeinteroperability,andelectronicidentity interoperability,andtriestoinfusethemwithcloudcharacteris- tics.
•Lastly, the fourth granularity level of interoperability issues involvesecosystemsinteroperability,which dealswithvirtual anddigitalenterprisesandisrelatedtocloudinteroperabilityand socialnetworksinteroperability.
Inthispaper,themethodologicalapproachtotheanalysisof theE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkisthus basedonthe followingsteps:
1.ThecontentsoftheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkare extractedandanalyzed (Section3).Thescopeof theanalysis presentsanoverviewofthecompletesetofguidelinesandspec- ifications.
2.AcomparisonoftheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkis detailed basedon thefollowing interoperabilityissues:data, process,rules,objects,softwaresystems,cultural,knowledge, services, social networks, electronic identifyinteroperability, cloudinteroperability,andecosystems(Section4).
3.A comparisonand contrast ofthe variousframeworks and a discussionofthelessonslearnedtofollowthepresentationof comparisonmatrixesinSection5.
3. E-businessInteroperabilityFramework
ThissectionreviewsexistingE-businessInteroperabilityFrame- work. These frameworks were identified through a search of relevantarticlespublishedontheWebofSciencedatabase.Using keywords such as “interoperability” and “framework,” Google Scholarwasutilizedasatooltocomplementthesearch.
3.1. InteroperabilityDevelopmentforEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
The Interoperability Development for Enterprise Application and Software (IDEAS) Framework (Fig. 2) was developed by theIDEAS projectbased ontheECMA/NIST Toaster Model, ISO 19101,andonISO19119andwasaugmentedthroughthequality attributes(Bourrières,2006;Zwegers,2003).TheIDEASFramework isaimedatreflectingtheviewwhereinInteroperabilityisachieved onmultiple levels: inter-enterprise coordination, physical inte- gration,syntactical applicationintegration,semanticapplication integrationandbusinessprocessintegration.
TheIDEASFrameworkpointsoutthatinteroperabilitybetween two cooperatingenterprises mustbeachievedondifferentlev- els(application,data,communication,business,andknowledge) (Chenetal.,2008a).
Allrelatedissuesin themanagement andorganizationofan enterpriseareaddressedinthebusinesslayer.Thebusinesslayer oftheIDEASFrameworkdetailshowtheenterpriseisorganized,the wayitoperatesinproducingvalue,andthewaytheinternalrela- tionshipswiththepersonnelandtheexternalrelationshipswith thesuppliers,customers,andpartnersaremanaged.Inthebusi- nesslayer,interoperabilityistheorganizational andoperational abilityoftheenterprisestocooperatewithoneanother(Chenetal., 2008a).
ThebusinesslayeroftheIDEASFrameworkcontainsthedeci- sionalmodel,thebusinessmodel,andthebusinessprocesses.The decisionalmodelidentifies thedecisionstomake andtheways suchdecisionsaremadeforanenterprise.Thismodelalsodefines
Fig.2.IDEASFramework(Zwegers,2003).
thedegreeofresponsibilityforeachoperatingunit,position,and role.Thebusinessmodeldescribesthecommercialrelationships betweenenterprisesandthemannerbywhichtheyofferservices andproductstothe market.Thebusiness processes aresets of activitiesthataregearedtowardsdeliveringvaluetothecustomers (Chenetal.,2008a).
TheknowledgelayeroftheIDEASFrameworkinvolvesrepre- senting,structuring,andacquiringpersonalorcollectiveenterprise knowledge.Thislayerrelatestotheinternalaspectsofknowledge.
Inproducts,forexample,theknowledgelayer,asidefromconsid- eringthe external aspects, describestheoperation and control activitiesoftheadministration,includingtheirpersonnelmanage- mentstrategies(Chenetal.,2008a).
InteroperabilityattheknowledgelayeroftheIDEASFramework relatestoskillscompatibilityaswellastotheassetsoftheenter- prise,namely, itsknowledgeand competenciesthat areunique fromthoseofotherenterprises.Intheknowledgelayer,themeth- odsandtoolssupportingthediffusion,organization,collection,and elicitationofbusinessknowledgeinanenterpriseareaddressed.
Severalmodelsareincludedinthislayer.Forexample,theorgani- zationalmodelrolescouldbedefinedbytheinternalorganization, thechainvalue,theenterprisenetwork,orthevalueconstellation.
Theorganizationcapabilityandtheorganizationofemployeesper- formingtasksunder certainconditionsare definedin theskills competencymodel.Theknowledgeassetsofenterprisesarethe capitalformalizedintermsofreferences,rules,norms,andproce- dures(Bourrières,2006;Chenetal.,2008a;Zwegers,2003).
Theapplication,data,andcommunicationlayersoftheIDEAS Framework allow enterprises to operate, make decisions, and
exchangeinformation.Thebusinessprocessmodelandtheknowl- edge layer orchestrate the overall execution of the enterprise application.Inturn,theenterpriseapplicationisidentifiedinthe businessprocessmodelandrepresentedandstoredintheknowl- edgelayer.Interoperabilityattheaforementionedlayersisdefined astheabilityofenterprisestocooperatewithotherexternalorga- nizationsandinvolvestheutilizationofsuchlayersinproviding interoperation between enterprise resources (Bourrières, 2006;
Chenetal.,2008a;Zwegers,2003).
Furthermore,theapplication,data,andcommunicationlayers oftheIDEASFrameworkconsistofdiverseareassuchasappli- cationlogic,datalogic,processlogic,workplaceinteraction,and solutionmanagement. Application logic refers tothe computa- tion carried out by the enterprise system to attain a business result.Datalogicisdefinedastheproductandrequirementofthe enterprisesystemduringitslifecycleandinvolvescontentman- agementandrepositoryservices.Processlogicistheseriesofsteps takenbyanapplication.Workplaceinteractioncanbedescribed ashumaninteractionwiththesystemviainput,output,andnav- igation.Finally,solutionmanagementcomprisestheprocedures andtoolsrequiredbytheadministratorsoftheenterprisesystem, includingmonitoringandsimulationtoolsaswellasroleandpolicy management(Bourrières,2006;Chenetal.,2008a;Zwegers,2003).
Thesemanticdimensioncutsacrosstheapplication,data,com- munication,knowledge,andbusinesslayers(Chenetal.,2008a).
Thequalityattributesofasystemisasupplementarydimension oftheframeworkthatisdeterminedbybusinessconsiderations.
These quality attributes, which include the basic statement of thesystem’sbehaviours,services,andcapabilities,arecomposed
Fig.3. TheAIF(Berreetal.,2007b).
of security (data storage, protection, and transfer), scalability, portability(ofapplicationanddata),performance,availability,and evolution.Thequalityattributeachievementshaveeithernegative orpositiveeffectsonotherqualityattributeachievements(Chen etal., 2008a).TheIDEASFrameworkwasdeveloped toaddress enterprise and manufacturing interoperability issues in Europe undertheFifthFrameworkProgramme(FP5)(Chenetal.,2008a).
3.2. ATHENAInteroperabilityFramework
The ATHENA Interoperability Framework (AIF) (Fig. 3) was developed by the ATHENAIntegrated Project for software sys- tems and enterprise applications (Berre et al., 2007b). The AIF adoptsaholisticviewoninteroperabilitywiththeaimofanalyz- ingandunderstandingtechnicalrequirementsandbusinessneeds aswellasprovidingamultidisciplinaryandmodel-drivensolution approachinsolvinginteroperabilityproblems(Guijarro,2009).
Synthesizing the research results of the ATHENA project is consideredas themain purpose of theAIF. In general,the AIF helpsintegratorsanddevelopersbyprovidingguidelinesonhow toaddresstheATHENAsolutionswithregard totheirtechnical requirementsandbusinessneedsforinteroperability.Thestructure oftheAIFisdividedintothreeparts,namely,conceptualintegra- tion,applicationintegration,andtechnicalintegration(Berreetal., 2007b;Bourrières,2006;Ruggaber,2005).
3.2.1. Conceptualintegration
TheconceptualintegrationframeworkoftheAIFhasevolved fromanumberofpre-existingframeworks.Concepts,languages, meta-models,andtherelationshipbetweenmodelsareallaimed towardsconceptualintegration,inwhichamodellingfoundationis providedforsystemizingvariousaspectsofinteroperability(Berre etal.,2007c).
Model-drivensolutionapproachesareoneofthekeyaspectsof theAIF.Theuniverseofdiscourseusedincollaboratingenterprises isthe application,data,and communicationsystems aswellas thecollaborativeenterprise.Thesolutionsforthesecollaborations, whicharefocusedonmodellingtheinteractionsandinformation exchanges,occuronbothtechnicalandbusinesslevels(Berreetal., 2007c).
ThereferencemodelprovidedbytheAIFstatesthatthemod- ellingsolutionsarisingfromthreedifferentresearchareascould berelated.Asimplisticviewofthereferencemodelisillustrated inFig.4,whichshowstheartefactsrequiredbyandprovidedfor two collaborating enterprises. In this referencemodel, interop- erationscouldoccuratvariouslevels(information/data,service, process,andenterprise/business).Amodel-driveninteroperability approachisprescribedforeachoftheselevelsinwhichthemodels
Fig.4. SimplisticviewoftheAIF(Berreetal.,2007b).
exchangeandformalizetheartefactsprovidedandrequired.Sub- sequently,suchartefactsmustbeagreeduponbyallparties(Berre etal.,2007c).
TheAIFdefinesasetofmeta-modelsandlanguagesthatcouldbe supportedbymethodsandtoolstoconstructthemodelsinques- tion.Startingfromthetoplevel,that is,theenterprise/business level, interoperability is considered as the organizational and operationalabilityofanenterprisetocooperatewithotherexter- nalorganizationsfactuallyratherthanthroughdifferentworking practices,commercialapproaches,cultures,andlegislations.The Process,Organization,Product(POP)meta-modelsupportsthecol- laborativeenterprisemodelling(ATHENA,2005b).
Making various processes work together is the objective of interoperability at the process level. Process is defined as the sequenceofservices(functions)dependingonspecificcompany needs.Identifyinghowtoconnecttheinternalprocessesoftwo companiesisnecessaryinanetworkedenterprisetocreateacross- organizationalbusinessprocess(CBP)meta-model.
Interoperability within the service level involves identify- ing, composing, and executing various applications that are implementedanddesignedindependently.Servicesareanabstrac- tion and an encapsulation of the functionality provided by an autonomousentity.
Attheinformation/datalevel,interoperabilityisconcernedwith theprocessing,exchange,andmanagementofdifferentmessages, documents, and/orstructures in differententities collaborating withoneanother.
To overcomethe semantic barriers emerging from different interpretations ofsyntactic descriptions, preciseand computer- processablemeaningmustbeassociatedwitheachconceptusing semantics and ontologies. A number of modelling notions are offeredbytheObject,Process,andActormodellinglanguage(OPAL) todefinethemeaningofconceptsmoreprecisely.Thismodelling languagealsoensuresconsistencyamongalllevelsbyrelatingthe conceptsatthesameanddifferentlevels(Berreetal.,2007c).
3.2.2. Applicativeintegration
Theapplicative integrationframework oftheAIF focuses on methodologies, standards,and domainmodels. Thisframework presentsguidelines,principles,andpatternsthatcouldbeusedin solvinginteroperabilityissues.Furthermore,itisinfluencedbythe EnterpriseUnifiedProcess(EUP),whichextendstheUnifiedSoft- wareDevelopmentProcesstocover theentireapplication,data, andcommunicationlifecycle(Berreetal.,2007c).
3.2.3. Technicalintegration
Application,data,andcommunicationenvironmentsaswellas technicaldevelopmentarethefocusofthetechnicalintegration frameworkoftheAIF.Thetechnicalintegrationframeworkoffers application,data,andcommunicationplatformsandtoolstorun anddevelopsoftwaresystemsaswellasenterpriseapplications.
Anintegratedarchitecturesupportingcollaborativeenterprises isdescribedinthetechnicalintegrationframeworkoftheAIF.This integratedarchitectureprovidesasetoftoolsandinfrastructure servicestosupportcollaborativeproductdevelopmentanddesign, informationinteroperability,serviceexecutionandcomposition,as wellascross-organizationalbusinessprocesses(Berreetal.,2007c).
3.3. EnterpriseInteroperabilityFramework
The Enterprise Interoperability Framework was developed within that of the INTEROP Network of Excellence. It aims to identifythebasicdimensionsofenterpriseinteroperability,define itsresearchdomain,andtodetermineandestablishthedomain knowledge(Chen,2006;Daclinetal.,2006).TheadoptedEnter- priseInteroperabilityFrameworkintendsto(1)definethedomain of enterpriseinteroperability byelaborating an interoperability frameworkusingabarrier-driven approachandto(2) structure andidentifythedomainknowledge(solutions)usingtheframe- work.Theproposedinteroperabilityframeworkiselaboratedbased ontheconceptsdevelopedinseveralexistingmodelsandframe- works,focusingontheconceptsthataremorerelevantindefining theenterpriseinteroperabilityresearchdomain(Chenetal.,2008b;
Guédriaetal.,2009;Jochem,2010).
3.3.1. Interoperabilitybarriers
Barriersareincompatibilitiesofvarioustypesandofvariouslev- elsofenterprises.Theincompatibilitieshinderinformationsharing andpreventserviceexchange.Commonbarriersexistonallenter- prisesregardlessof thesectorof activitiesand size.Developing interoperability means developing solutions and knowledge to removeincompatibilities.Identifiedbarriersaredividedintothree categories,namely,conceptual,technological,andorganizational barriers(Chen,2006).
Conceptualbarriers:Conceptualbarriersareconcernedwiththe semanticandsyntacticdifferencesininformationexchanges.These barriersdeal withmodelling at a highlevel of abstraction (for instance,companyenterprisemodels),includingthatatthepro- gramminglevel(forinstance,XMLmodels).
Technological barriers: Technological barriers relate to the incompatibilityofinformationtechnologies(infrastructure,archi- tecture,and platforms). These barriers are concerned withthe standardsfortheprocessing,exchange,storage,presentation,and communicationofdatathroughcomputers.
Organizational barriers: Organizational barriers refer to the responsibility,definition,andauthority,inadditiontotheincom- patibility,oforganizationalstructures.
3.3.2. Enterpriselevels
Interoperationscouldoccuratvariouslevelsofanenterprise.
FourenterpriselevelsarebasedontheATHENAtechnicalarchitec- ture.
Datainteroperability:Datainteroperabilityrelatestomakingdif- ferentquerylanguagesanddatamodelsworktogether.Itinvolves findingandsharingheterogeneousinformationbaseswhereindif- ferentmachineswithdifferentdatabasesaswellasmanagement andoperatingsystemscouldreside(Chen,2006).
Serviceinteroperability:Serviceinteroperabilityreferstoiden- tifying, composing, and making various applications that are implementedanddesignedindependentlyfunctiontogether.The term“service”isnotlimitedtocomputer-basedapplications;italso coversnetworkedenterprisesandcompanyfunctions(Chen,2006;
Francois,1996).
Processinteroperability:Processinteroperabilityintendstomake variousprocessesworktogether.Aprocessreferstothesequence offunctionsorservicesdependingoncompanyneeds.Atthislevel, knowinghowtoconnecttheinternalprocessesoftwocompanies
Fig.5. ThetwobasicdimensionsoftheEnterpriseInteroperabilityFramework (Chen,2006).
isnecessarytocreateacommonprocessinanetworkedenterprise (Chenetal.,2008b).
Business interoperability: Business interoperability involves workingharmoniouslyatthecompanyandorganizationallevels despitedifferentmodesofdecisionmaking,workpractices,culture, legislations,commercialapproaches,andsoon.Achievingaharmo- niousenvironmentcouldaidindevelopingbusinessesbetweenthe companies(Chenetal.,2008a).
3.3.3. Interoperabilityapproaches
AccordingtoISO14258(Chen,2006), theintegrated,unified, andfederatedapproachesarethethreebasicwaystorelateentities (systems)tooneanothertoestablishinteroperations.
Integratedapproach:Intheintegratedapproach,acommonfor- matexistsforallmodels.Thiscommonformatmustbeasdetailed asthemodels.Althoughnotnecessarily astandard, thisformat mustbeagreeduponbyallpartiestobuildsystemsandelaborate models.
Unified approach: In the unified approach, a common for- matexistsonly atthemeta-level.Differentfromtheintegrated approach,whichisconsideredasanexecutableentity,theunified approachprovidesameaningforsemanticequivalencetopermit mappingbetweenmodels.
Federatedapproach:Inthefederatedapproach,nocommonfor- matexists.Establishinginteroperabilityrequirespartiestomake certainaccommodationsonthefly.Usingthis approachimplies thatnopartnerimposestheirmethods,languages,andworkmod- els.Partnersmustthereforeshareontologies.
BasedontheaforementionedconceptsoftheproposedEnter- prise Interoperability Framework, two basic dimensions are illustrated(Fig.5):(1)enterprisedimensionrepresentinglevelsof anenterprise(aspectsofinteroperability)and(2)interoperability dimensionrepresentingbarriersofinteroperability.
Fig.6illustratestheinteroperabilityframeworkwiththebar- riersofconceptualinteroperabilityfurtherdetailedintosemantic andsyntaxbarriers.Theuseoftheinteroperabilityframeworkin categorizingandidentifyingknowledgeisalsoshowninFig.6.A pieceofknowledgemaycovermorethanonelevelandmayconcern morethanonebarrier.Forinstance,UEMLV1.0intendstoremove thesyntacticbarrieroftheenterpriseinteroperabilitymodeland coversallthefourlevels,whiletheProcessSpecificationLanguage (PSL)contributestotheremovalofsemanticandsyntacticbarriers butislimitedtotheprocesslevel(Chen,2006).
Interoperabilityapproaches,thethirddimensionaddedtothe othertwodimensionsoftheframework,isshowninFig.7.These approachesenablethecategorizationofsolutionsandknowledge relating toenterprise interoperabilityaccording tothe ways of removingvariousinteroperabilitybarriers(Chen,2006).
Fig.6. Useoftheframeworkindefiningthedomainandinstructuringknowledge (Chen,2006).
Forinstance,PSLcontributestotheremovalofconceptualbar- riers(bothsemanticsandsyntax)attheprocesslevelthrougha unifiedapproach.
3.4. GridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFramework
The GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Framework (Fig. 8) was introduced by the GridWise Architecture Council (GWAC)(Widergrenetal.,2007).Thisframeworkidentifiesaset ofcross-cuttingissuesandcategorizesinteroperabilityintoeight partsthatarerelevanttothemissionofsystemsintegrationand interoperationintheelectricalend-use,distribution,transmission, andgenerationindustries.Inthisframework,themajorinterop- erabilityaspectsaregroupedintothreecategories:organizational, informational,andtechnical.
Intheorganizationalcategory,thepragmaticaspectsofinter- operation are emphasized, representing the interactions policy andbusinessdrivers.Intheinformationalcategory,thesemantic aspectsofinteroperationareemphasized.Moreover,thiscategory isfocusedontheexchangedinformationanditsmeaning.Inthe technicalcategory, theinformation formator syntaxis empha- sized.Thefocusofthiscategoryisonthewaytheinformationis representedinanexchangedmessage,includingthecommunica- tionmedium.
TheinteroperabilitycategoriesareshowninFig.8.TheGrid- WiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFrameworkpertainstoan electricityplusinformation(E+I)infrastructure.Pragmaticdrivers revolvearoundthemanagementofelectricityattheorganizational layers. Syntax issues and communications networking involve
Fig.7.ThreebasicdimensionsoftheEnterpriseInteroperabilityFramework(Chen, 2006).
informationtechnologyatthetechnicallayers.Attheinformational layer,informationtechnologyistransferredintoknowledgetosup- port the organizational aspects of electricity-relatedbusinesses (Widergrenetal.,2007).
To achieve interoperation,areas consideredas cross-cutting issuesmustbeaddressedandagreedupon. Cross-cuttingissues are commonlyrelevant tomorethan oneinteroperability cate- goryoftheGridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFramework.
These issuesrepresent theareasthat shouldbeinvestigated to advanceinteroperabilityacrossthewebofelectricconcerns,which involve(i)sharingofcontentmeaning,(ii)identifyingresources, (iii)timesequencingandsynchronization,(iv)privacyandsecurity, (v)auditingandlogging,(vi)statemanagementandtransaction, (vii)systempreservation,(viii)scalability,reliability,andperfor- mance,(ix)configurationanddiscovery,and(x)systemevolution.
Fig.9showsthecross-cuttingissuescoveringallcategories.
4. ComparativeanalysisoftheE-businessInteroperability Framework
Inthissection,theindicationsalongsideeachcriterion(interop- erabilityissue)ineachtabledenotethecorrespondingcoveragein eachparticularE-businessInteroperabilityFramework.Examples arepresentedbelow.
• √indicatesthattheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkhas adoptedanapproachforthiscriterion,withoutjudgingwhether thisapproachprovidesfullorpartialcoveragefortheissue.
•Xreferstothelackofatangibleapproachtothisissue.
•?characterizesacriterionwhentheinformationgatheredbythe E-businessInteroperability Frameworkspecificationsis inade- quatetoevaluatethiscriterion.
4.1. Datainteroperability
Data interoperability describestheability of data (including documents,multimediacontentanddigitalresources)tobeuni- versallyaccessible,reusableandcomprehensiblebyalltransaction parties(inahuman-to-machineandmachine-to-machinebasis), byaddressingthelackofcommonunderstandingcausedbytheuse ofdifferentrepresentations,differentpurposes,differentcontexts, and different syntax-dependent approaches (Koussouris et al., 2011;MykkänenandTuomainen,2008).Sub-areasofdatainter- operabilityareasfollows:
•Semanticdatarepresentation:semanticdatarepresentationrefers totheenrichmentandrepresentationofdatausingsemantics towardsincreasingthedegreeofcomprehendingtheinformation carried.
•Datastandardization:datastandardizationreferstotheuseofthe samesetofcodestocreategeneric,yetexpandable,datastan- dardstobeusedbyallenterprisesystems.
•Schema matching: schema matching refers to identifying the existenceof semanticrelationshipsbetweendata objectsand mappingthemtoeachother.
•Data mediation: data mediation refers to thetranslation and transformationofdatabetweentwoormoredifferentschemas.
All of the E-business Interoperability Framework focus on semanticdatarepresentationsub-areainthedatainteroperability issue.Thedatastandardizationsub-areaismerelycoveredbyInter- operabilityDevelopmentforEnterpriseApplicationandSoftware FrameworkandGridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFrame- work.Theschemamatchingsub-areainthedatainteroperability issue is considered in ATHENA Interoperability Framework
Fig.8.Interoperabilitylayeredcategories(Widergrenetal.,2007).
Fig.9. Interoperabilitycontext-settingframeworkdiagram(Widergrenetal.,2007).
and GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Framework. The sub-area of data mediation is only addressed by the ATHENA Interoperability Framework.Table 1 illustrates the mapping of datainteroperabilitysub-areastotheE-businessInteroperability Framework.
4.2. Processinteroperability
Process interoperability is defined as the ability to align processes of different entities (enterprises), in order for them to exchange data and to conduct business in a seamless way Table1
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkanddatainteroperabilitymatrix.
E-business Interoperability Framework
InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Datainteroperability
Semanticdata representation
√ √ √ √
Datastandardization √
× ? √
Schemamatching × √
× √
Datamediation × √
× ×
(Koussourisetal.,2011).Theprocessinteroperabilityincludesthe followingsub-areas:
•Processmodelling:process modellingreferstotheactivitiesof describingaprocessorasetofprocessesthroughaspecificrep- resentationmethodcalledmodellingmethodology.
•Processreengineering:processreengineeringreferstoactivities employedwiththetransformationofprocessestomoregeneric onesinordertofollowthesamepatterns.
•Processstandardization:processstandardizationreferstothedef- initionofuniversalstandardprocessesthathavetobeoperated byenterprisesofanykind.
•Process alignment: process alignment refers to the creation of generic process models accompanied with the underlying mappingprocedurestowardsenablinginteroperabilitybetween processesbelongingindifferententerprises.
•Automatedprocessexecution:automatedprocessexecutionrefers totheabilitytogenerateandexecutebusinessprocessesdirectly frombusinessprocessmodels,enablingtheautomaticgeneration ofprocessesbasedonrequestsfromthirdpartiesalso.
Interoperability Development for Enterprise Application and Software Framework and ATHENA Interoperability Framework focusonprocessmodellingandprocessstandardizationsub-areas intheprocessinteroperabilityissue.Inaddition,ATHENAInterop- erabilityFrameworkaddressestheautomatedprocessexecution sub-area. Enterprise Interoperability Framework only focuses on the process modelling. Ultimately, GridWise Interoperabil- ityContext-SettingFrameworksupportsthesub-areasofprocess modellingandprocessalignmentintheprocessinteroperability issue.Table 2presents themapping ofprocess interoperability sub-areastoE-businessInteroperabilityFramework.
4.3. Rulesinteroperability
Rulesinteroperabilityistheabilityofentitiestoalignandmatch theirbusinessandlegalrulesforconductinglegitimateautomated transactionsthatarealsocompatiblewiththeinternalbusiness operationrulesofeachother(Gionisetal.,2007b;Koussourisetal., 2011).Sub-areasofrulesinteroperabilityareasfollows:
•Rulesmodelling:rulesmodellingreferstodocumentationandthe developmentofexpandableandre-usablemodelsthatareable torepresentrules(legalorbusinessspecific).
•Business and legal rules homogenization/alignment: legislation alignmentreferstothealignmentofthedifferentlegislativeenvi- ronmentsofdifferentterritoriesinordertoenablethelegitimate conductoftransactionsinallinvolveddomains.
•Rulesexecution:rulesexecutionreferstothedynamicprocessing andhandlingofrulesbysystemsinordertobeabletocomply withbothlegislativeandbusinessrulesthatembracebusiness processesandtransactions.
Inrulesinteroperabilityissue,sub-areaofrulesmodellingisonly addressed by GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Frame- work.Businessandlegalruleshomogenization/alignmentsub-area is considered in Interoperability Development for Enterprise ApplicationandSoftwareFramework,EnterpriseInteroperability Framework,andGridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFrame- work.Thesub-areaofrulesexecutionisnotsupportedinanyofthe E-businessInteroperabilityFramework.Table3showsthemapping ofrulesinteroperabilitysub-areastoE-businessInteroperability Framework.
4.4. Objectsinteroperability
Objectsinteroperabilityreferstothenetworkedinterconnec- tionandcooperationofeverydayobjects(Vallecilloetal.,1999).
These objects can embrace aspects besides and beyond soft- ware components, consistent with the concept of Internet of Things (Gershenfeld et al.,2004).Objectscan bereally seenas orthogonalconcepts,eachonehavingitsownspecificanddistin- guishingfeatures.Inthiscontext,devicesorhardwarecomponents interoperability can be seen as a particular case of the object interoperabilitydomain(European-Commission,2008;Koussouris etal., 2011).Theobjectsinteroperabilityincludesthefollowing sub-areas:
•Radio-frequencyidentification(RFID)interoperability:RFIDinter- operability refers to tags from any vendor to be able to communicatewithRFIDreadersfromanyvendor,andalsoto whenagiventaggedobjectisabletobeidentifiedbyRFIEDread- ersofanyuserinawidevarietyofapplicationconditions.
•Deviceinteroperability:interoperabilitybetweenphysicaldevices thatinvolvestransferringinformationthroughcommunication channel,usingservicesofdifferentdevices,andunderstanding themeaningofinformationunambiguously.
•Smart objects communication: smart objects communication referstothecommunicationofsmartdevices.
Interoperability Development for Enterprise Application and Software Framework,ATHENA Interoperability Framework,and Enterprise Interoperability Framework are not addressing any sub-areas of the objects interoperability issue. The GridWise InteroperabilityContext-SettingFrameworkfocusesonRFIDinter- operability and device interoperability sub-areas in the objects interoperability issue.The sub-areaof smart objects communi- cationinobjectsinteroperabilityissueisnotevenconsideredby theGridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFramework.TheE- businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandobjectsinteroperability matrixispresentedinTable4.
4.5. Softwaresystemsinteroperability
Software systems interoperability refers tothe ability of an enterprisesystemoraproducttoworkwithotherenterprisesys- temsorproductswithoutspecialeffortfromthestakeholders(Lusk etal.,2006).Thiscanbeachievedwithalargenumberofalter- nativeITarchitecturesstakeholders(BrittonandBye,2004),and solutionsstakeholders(Al-Naeemetal.,2005),includingcustom, in-housedevelopmentofAPIs,message-orientedmiddlewareand messagebrokers,service-orientedarchitectureimplementations, orcomprehensivestand-aloneB2Bsoftwaregateways(Koussouris etal.,2011).Sub-areasofsoftwaresystemsinteroperabilityareas follows:
•Webservicesinteroperability:ServiceOrientedArchitecture(SOA) is a set of design principles used during the phases of sys- temsdevelopmentandintegrationincomputing.Asystembased onanSOAwillpackagefunctionality asasuiteofinteropera- bleservicesthatcanbeusedwithinmultiple,separatesystems from severalbusiness domains. Web servicescan implement a service-orientedarchitecture.Webservicesmakefunctional building-blocksaccessibleoverstandardInternetprotocolsinde- pendentofplatformsandprogramminglanguages.Theseservices canrepresenteithernewapplicationsorjustwrappersaround existinglegacysystemstomakethemnetwork-enabled.
•Middlewarearchitectures:middlewareiscomputersoftwarethat connectssoftwarecomponentsorpeopleandtheirapplications.
Thissoftwareconsistsofasetofservicesthatallowsmultiple
Table2
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandprocessinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperabilityFramework InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Processinteroperability
Processmodelling √ √ √ √
Processreengineering ? × × ×
Processstandardization √ √
? ×
Processalignment × × ? √
Automatedprocessexecution × √
× ?
Table3
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandrulesinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Rulesinteroperability
Rulesmodelling ? ? × √
Businessandlegalrules homogenization/alignment
√ × √ √
Rulesexecution × × × ?
processesrunningononeormoremachinestointeract.Thistech- nologyevolvedtoprovideforinteroperabilityinsupportofthe movetocoherentdistributedarchitectures.
•Interoperabilityconformance&testing:softwareinteroperability testingistheactivityofproving thatend-to-endfunctionality between(atleast)twocommunicatingsystemsasrequiredby thosesystems’basestandards.
•Interoperablesoftwaremodels&buildingblocks:aninteroperable softwaremodelusuallydefinesatechnicalinfrastructure.Addi- tionally,themediatordefinesthemechanisms(connectors)to beusedfortheinteractionandcommunicationbetweencompo- nents.
In software systems interoperability issue, web services interoperabilitysub-areaisconsideredinInteroperabilityDevel- opment for Enterprise Application and Software Framework, ATHENA Interoperability Framework, and GridWise Interoper- abilityContext-SettingFramework.Themiddlewarearchitectures sub-areaisnotsupportedbyanyoftheE-businessInteroperability Framework.Thesub-areaofinteroperabilityconformanceandtest- ingisonlyaddressedbyATHENAInteroperabilityFramework,and thesub-areaofinteroperablesoftwaremodelsandbuildingblocks is only considered by Interoperability Development for Enter- priseApplicationandSoftwareFramework.Table5illustratesthe mapping of software systems interoperability sub-areas to E- businessInteroperabilityFramework.
4.6. Culturalinteroperability
Culturalinteroperabilityisthedegreetowhichknowledgeand information is anchored to a unified model of meaning across cultures.Enterprisesystemsthattakeintoconsiderationcultural interoperabilityaspectscanbeusedbytransnationalgroupsindif-
ferentlanguagesandcultureswiththesamedomainofinterestin acost-effectiveandefficientmanner(Koussourisetal.,2011).The culturalinteroperabilityincludesthefollowingsub-areas:
•Languageinteroperability:languageinteroperabilityreferstothe automaticandseamlesstranslationofphysicallanguages.
•Alignmentintraditions,religionsandethics:alignmentintradi- tions,religionsandethicsreferstofindingwaysofrespecting eachindividual’sculturalneedswhileatthesametimepromoting collaborationandcooperation.
Inculturalinteroperabilityissue,languageinteroperabilitysub- areais considered by ATHENAInteroperability Framework and GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework.The sub- areaofAlignmentintraditions,religionsandethicsisnotsupported by any of the E-business Interoperability Framework. Table 6 presentsthemappingofculturalinteroperabilitysub-areastoE- businessInteroperabilityFramework.
4.7. Knowledgeinteroperability
Knowledgeinteroperabilityistheabilityoftwo ormoredif- ferententities toshare theirintellectualassets,takeimmediate advantageofthemutualknowledgeandutilizeit,andtofurther extendthemthroughcooperation(Koussourisetal.,2011).Sub- areasofknowledgeinteroperabilityareasfollows:
•Knowledgesharing&knowledgerepositories:knowledgesharing andknowledgerepositoriesreferstotheemploymentofmeth- odsandtoolsforrecordingandstoringknowledgeinawaythat isretrievableandmeaningfultoeverypartythatisallowedto accessit.
Table4
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandobjectsinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
InteroperabilityDevelopmentfor EnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Objectsinteroperability
RFIDinteroperability × × × √
Deviceinteroperability ? ? × √
Smartobjectscommunication × × × ×
Table5
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandsoftwaresystemsinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
Interoperability Developmentfor EnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework
Softwaresystemsinteroperability
Webservicesinteroperability √ √ × √
Middlewarearchitectures ? ? × ×
Interoperabilityconformance&
testing
× √
× ?
Interoperablesoftwaremodels
&buildingblocks
√ × × ?
•Business units knowledge alignment: business units alignment referstotheintegration,sharingandcollaborationofmultiple businessunitsintermsofknowledgeinordertodeliveraproduct oraservice.
•Ontologymatching: ontology matching refers to the determi- nationof relationshipsand correspondences betweenvarious knowledgeconceptsthatareincorporatedinontologies.
•Businessknowledgereasoninganalysis&representation:itrefers tothetoolsforbusinessknowledgereasoninganalysisandrep- resentation.
ATHENAInteroperabilityFramework andEnterprise Interop- erabilityFrameworkfocusonknowledgesharingandknowledge repositories, business units knowledge alignment, and ontol- ogy matching sub-areas in knowledge interoperability issue.
InteroperabilityDevelopmentforEnterpriseApplicationandSoft- wareFrameworkaddressesbusinessunitsknowledgealignment andontologymatchingsub-areas.TheGridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework only focuses ontologymatching in knowledgeinteroperabilityissue.Table7showsthemappingof knowledgeinteroperabilitysub-areastoE-businessInteroperabil- ityFramework.
4.8. Servicesinteroperability
Servicesinteroperabilitycanbedefinedastheabilityofanenter- prisetodynamicallyregister,aggregateandconsumecomposite servicesofanexternalsource,suchas abusinesspartneroran internet-basedserviceprovider,inseamlessmanner(Koussouris et al., 2011; Papazoglou, 2008). The services interoperability includesthefollowingsub-areas:
•Automatic servicediscovery and description: automatic service discovery,description,composition,negotiationreferstotools, methodologiesandinfrastructuresenablingtheautomaticdis- covery of services offered by enterprises and the dynamic compositionoftheminordertoconductbusinessinanauto- mated manner with no extra modification in the enterprise systems.
•Serviceco-design:serviceco-designinanenterpriseinvolvesthe individualsfromalllevelsofanorganizationintheinnovation process—empoweringthemasco-designersofserviceconcepts
sotheycandevelopamorecohesiveexperienceatthepointof use.
•Service level agreements alignment: a service-level agreement (SLA)isacontractbetweenanetworkserviceproviderandacus- tomerthatspecifies,usuallyinmeasurableterms,whatservices thenetworkserviceproviderwillfurnish.
•Enterprisemashups:an enterprisemashup,alsoreferred toas abusinessmashup,isanapplicationthatcombinesdatafrom multipleinternalandpublicsourcesand publishestheresults to enterprise portals, application development tools, or as a servicein anSOAcloud.Enterprisemashupsmust alsointer- operate withenterprise application technologiesfor security, governance,monitoring,andavailability.
•Serviceorchestration:serviceorchestrationreferstothecomposi- tionofprocessesfromexistingservices.Anorchestrationdefines externalinteractionsaswellasinternalactions.Externalinter- actionsincludeinvokingotherservicesandreceivingincoming messages;internalactionsincludedatatransformationsandcal- culations.
•Servicechoreography:achoreographydescribesserviceinterac- tionsfromtheperspectiveofanexternalobserver,seeingonly whatishappeningintheservices’interfaces.Itdoesnotdescribe whatishappeninginsideaparticipatingservice.
In service interoperability issue,all of theE-business Inter- operabilityFrameworkfocusonautomaticservicediscoveryand descriptionandserviceco-designsub-areas.Servicelevelagree- mentsalignment,enterprisemashups,andservicechoreography sub-areasarenotsupportedbyanyoftheE-businessInteroper- abilityFramework.Thesub-areaofserviceorchestrationinservice interoperability issueis only consideredby ATHENA Interoper- abilityFramework.TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkand serviceinteroperabilitymatrixispresentedinTable8.
4.9. Socialnetworksinteroperability
Socialnetworksinteroperabilityreferstotheabilityofenter- prisestoseamlesslyinterconnectandutilizesocial networksfor collaborationpurposes,byaligningtheirinternalstructuretothe fundamental aspects of the social networks (Abel et al., 2009;
Koussourisetal.,2011).Sub-areaofsocialnetworksinteroperabil- ityisasfollows:
Table6
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandculturalinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperabilityFramework InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Culturalinteroperability
Languageinteroperability × √
? √
Alignmentintraditions, religionsandethics
× × × ?
Table7
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandknowledgeinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Knowledgeinteroperability
Knowledgesharing&
knowledgerepositories
× √ √ ×
Businessunitsknowledge alignment
√ √ √
?
Ontologymatching √ √ √ √
Businessknowledge reasoninganalysis&
representation
? × ? ×
•Socialnetworkcharacteristicsinfusion:socialnetworkintegration referstotheintegrationofspecificsocialmediaaspectsandchar- acteristicsintheorganizationalstructureofanenterpriseinorder tobeable toutilize seamlesslysuchinfrastructuresandtheir functions.
NoneoftheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworksfocuson socialnetworkcharacteristicsinfusionsub-areainsocialnetworks interoperabilityissue. Table 9 illustrates the mappingof social networksinteroperabilitysub-areatoE-businessInteroperability Framework.
4.10. Electronicidentityinteroperability
Electronicidentityinteroperabilityreferstheabilityofdifferent electronicidentitysystemswithinoracrosstheboundariesofan enterprisetocollaborateinordertoautomaticallyauthenticateand authorizeentitiesandtopassonsecurityrolesandpermissionsto thecorrespondingelectronicidentityholders,regardlessthesys- temthattheyoriginatefrom(Koussourisetal.,2011;Palfreyand Gasser,2007).Theelectronicidentityinteroperabilityincludesthe followingsub-areas:
•Digital signatures interoperability: digital signatures interop- erability is the mutual recognition of electronic signatures amongcountries,thatinvolvesovercomingofthecurrentlegal (legislation,managementauthorities)aswellastechnicalhetero- geneitiesintermsofattributes,validation,formatandalgorithms (IDABC,2009).
•Federatedidentitymanagementsystemsinteroperability:afeder- ated identity management system supports thetechnologies, standardsanduse-caseswhich servetoenabletheportability ofidentityinformation acrossotherwiseautonomoussecurity domains.
•Enterprisecontextmobility:itreferstothemobilityofanenter- prisetocollaborate.
The Interoperability Development for Enterprise Applica- tion and Software Framework and Enterprise Interoperability Framework are not addressing any of the electronic identity interoperability issue sub-areas. The GridWise Interoperability Context-SettingFrameworkfocusesonthesub-areasoffederated identitymanagementsystemsinteroperabilityandenterprisecon- text mobility. The ATHENAInteroperability Framework is only concentratingonenterprisecontextmobilityinelectronicidentity interoperabilityissue.Table10presentsthemappingofelectronic identityinteroperabilitysub-areas toE-businessInteroperability Framework.
4.11. Cloudinteroperability
Cloudinteroperabilitydefinestheabilityofcloudservicesto beabletoworktogetherwithbothdifferentcloudservicesand providers,andotherapplicationsorplatformsthatarenotcloud dependant(Koussourisetal.,2011).Thescopeofinteroperability refersbothtothelinksamongstdifferentcloudsandtheconnec- tionbetweenacloudandanorganization’slocalsystems(Dillon etal.,2010)inordertorealizetheseamlessfluiddataacrossclouds and betweencloudand localapplications(Janssenet al.,2013;
Koussourisetal.,2011).Sub-areasofcloudinteroperabilityareas follows:
•Unifiedcloudinterfaces(SaaSIo):unifiedcloudinterfacesreferto thedesignofstandardinterfacesfordirectcommunicationand interoperationbetweencloudsfromdifferentproviders.
•Cloud federation: cloudfederation refers tothe ability touti- lizeheterogeneouscloudresourcesasa unified anduniversal computingenvironmentwithoutexperiencingtheissuesthatcan becausedbythisdifferentiation.
•IaaSinteroperability:IaaSinteroperabilityreferstotheabilityof resourcesononeIaaSprovidertocommunicatewithresources onanotherIaaSprovider.
•PaaSinteroperability:PaaSinteroperabilityreferstotheabilityof resourcesononePaaSprovidertocommunicatewithresources onanotherPaaSprovider.
Table8
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandserviceinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
Interoperability Developmentfor EnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework
Servicesinteroperability
Automaticservicediscoveryanddescription √ √ √ √
Serviceco-design √ √ √ √
Servicelevelagreementsalignment × × × ×
Enterprisemashups × × × ×
Serviceorchestration × √
? ×
Servicechoreography × ? ? ×
Table9
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandsocialnetworksinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperabilityFramework InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Socialnetworksinteroperability
Socialnetworkcharacteristicsinfusion ? × × ×
Table10
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandelectronicidentityinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperabilityFramework InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Electronicidentityinteroperability
Digitalsignatures interoperability
× × × ?
Federatedidentity managementsystems interoperability
× ? × √
Enterprisecontextmobility × √
? √
Table11
TheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkandcloudinteroperabilitymatrix.
E-businessInteroperability Framework
InteroperabilityDevelopment forEnterpriseApplicationand SoftwareFramework
ATHENAInteroperability Framework
EnterpriseInteroperability Framework
GridWiseInteroperability Context-Setting Framework Cloudinteroperability
Unifiedcloudinterfaces (SaaSIo)
× × × ×
Cloudfederation × × × ×
IaaSinteroperability × × × ×
PaaSinteroperability × × × ×
Theunified cloudinterfaces (SaaSIo), cloudfederation, IaaS interoperability,andPaaSinteroperabilitysub-areasincloudinter- operability issue are not supported by any of the E-business InteroperabilityFramework.Table11showsthemappingofcloud interoperabilitysub-areas to E-businessInteroperability Frame- work.
4.12. Ecosystemsinteroperability
Ecosystems interoperability can be defined as the ability of instantandseamlesscollaborationbetweendifferentecosystems andindependententities,entitieswithintheecosystemsandasthe abilityofdifferentindependententitiestoformulatevirtualstruc- turesforspecificpurposes(Koussourisetal.,2011).Theecosystems interoperabilityincludesthefollowingsub-areas:
•Businessecosystemsinteroperation:businessecosystemsinterop- erationreferstotheabilityofBusinessEcosystemstocooperate inordertodynamicallyconvergeandoperatetowardsacommon goal.
•InteroperabilitywithinVirtualEnterprises:virtualenterpriseinte- grationreferstotheabilityoftwoormorevirtualenterprisesto beabletocommunicateandcollaborateinallbusinesslevelsin aseamlessandautomatedway.
•BusinessStrategyAlignment:BusinessStrategyAlignmentrefers totheabilityofbusinesstoachievetheirstrategicgoals.
Noneof theE-business InteroperabilityFrameworkfocus on sub-areasofecosystemsinteroperabilityissue(BusinessEcosys- tems Interoperation,Interoperability within Virtual Enterprises, andBusinessStrategyAlignment).TheE-businessInteroperability Frameworkandecosystemsinteroperabilitymatrixispresentedin Table12.
5. Discussion
An interoperability framework defines the standards, poli- cies, and information specifications, which enables predictable interconnection and exchange between separate systems and allows systems towork together.It providesthe sharedvision andrulesforexecutingcoordinatedchangestosupportcomplex, emerginginteractionsbetweenorganizations.Thepublicationof interoperabilityguidesandresultingengagementwithalllevels ofinteroperabilityiscriticaltosuccess.Thestate-of-the-artanaly- sisontheE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkrevealsthatthe existingE-businessInteroperabilityFrameworkhavecarriedout considerableeffortstosupporttheinteroperabilityissuesinthe first,andthesecondgranularitylevels,howevertheinteroperabil- ityissuesinthethirdgranularitylevel(cloudinteroperability)and thefourthgranularitylevel(ecosystemsinteroperability)arenot supportedintheexistingE-businessInteroperabilityFramework.
Furthermore,theanalysisoftheE-businessInteroperabilityFrame- workindicatesthateffortstobuildanE-businessInteroperability Frameworkhaveusuallybeendevotedtoproductionofguidelines andstandardsaddressingthefollowingfourlevelsofinteroperabil- ity:technical,syntactic,semantic,andorganizational.
Moreindetails,qualityattributesareasupplementarydimen- sionoftheIDEASFramework.Businessconsiderationsdetermine thequalitiesthatmustbeaccommodatedinasystem.Theconsid- eredattributesare(1)security,(2)scalability,(3)portability,(4) performance,(5)availability,and(6)evolution.Emphasismustbe placedonthefactthattheachievementofanyqualityattribute will have an either positive or negative effect onthe achieve- mentofotherqualityattributes[32].Toachieveinteroperation, theGridWiseInteroperabilityContext-SettingFrameworkdefines cross-cutting issues. The scopeof theE-business Interoperabil- ity Frameworkmainly extends over business-to-business (B2B)
