Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical assessment of the accuracy of an interoperability prediction language

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interoperability, defined as the satisfaction of a communication need between two or more actors, is an important aspect in many phases of an enterprise’s development. Mastering the field of interoperability is a daunting task so aid in predicting interoperability can be of great benefit. Formalisms capable of such predictions of future information system architectures are however sparse, and when employed, it is essential that the prediction is accurate. In this paper, a previously proposed interoperability modelling and prediction language is subjected to case testing and evaluated toward interoperability predictions made by practitioners and experts in the field. The results show that although there are some areas not currently covered by the framework, in general, it performs better than the intended users, and would thereby provide additional support in various development and design contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The course covers the use of architecture models as a means to assess various business and system properties, i.e. the approach used in the framework of this article, see (Ullberg 2009b) for more information.

References

  • Agarwal, R., Kannan, R., & Tanniru, M. (1993). Formal validation of a knowledge-based system using a variation of the Turing test. Expert Systems with Applications, 6, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberola, J.M., Botti, V., & Such, J.M. (2014). Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2).

  • Baddeley, M. C., Curtis, A., & Wood, R. (2004). An introduction to prior information derived from probabilistic judgements: elicitation of knowledge, cognitive bias and herding. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 239(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berre, A.J., Elvesaeter, B., Figay, N., Guglielmina, C., Johnsen, S., Karlsen, D., et al. (2007). The ATHENA Interoperability Framework. In Proceedings of Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications (I-ESA).

  • Blanc S., Ducq, Y., & Vallespir, B. (2007). A graph based approach for interoperability evaluation. In Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications (I-ESA).

  • Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (2005). Unified modeling language user guide, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley.

  • Chandrasekaran, B. (1983). On evaluating artificial intelligence systems for medical diagnosis. AI Magazine, 4(2), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., & Daclin, N. (2006). Framework for enterprise interoperability. In 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Integration, Interoperability and Networking (EI2N).

  • Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647–659. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daclin,N.,& Mallek, S. (2014). Capturing and structuring interoperability requirements: a framework for interoperability requirements. In 7th International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprises Systems and Applications (I-ESA 2014).

  • Department of Defense (DoD). 2004. DoD Architecture Framework, version 1.0.

  • GridWise Architecture Council (2008). GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Framework v1.1.

  • IDABC (2004). Enterprise and industry DG, European interoperability framework for pan-European egovernment services. version 1.0. Brussels.

  • Johnson, P., Ullberg, J., Buschle, M., Franke, U., & Shahzad, K. (2014). An architecture modeling framework for probabilistic prediction. Information Systems and e-Business Management. doi:10.1007/s10257-014-0241-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasunic, M., & Anderson, W. (2004). Measuring systems interoperability: Challenges and opportunities. Technical Note, CMU/SEI-2004-TN-003, Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Kynn, M. (2008). The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(1), 239–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankhorst, M. (2013). Enterprise architecture at work (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lauras, M., Benaben, F., Truptil, S., & Charles, A. (2015). Event-cloud platform to support decision-making in emergency management. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(4), 857–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallek, S., Daclin, N., & Chaprulat, V. (2012). The application of interoperability requirement specification and verification to collaborative processes in industry. Computers in Industry, 63, 642–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, F., Buckl, S., Leitel, J., & Schweda, C. M. (2008). Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008, Technical Report, Chair for informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München.

  • Meyer, M.A., & Booker, J.M. (2001). Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: A practical guide. Siam.

  • Ministry of Defence (MOD) (2008). MOD Architecture Framework version 1.2.003, Technical report.

  • Morgan, M. G., Henrion, M., & Small, M. (1992). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Morris, E., Levine, L., Meyers, C., Place, P., & Plakosh, D. (2004). Systems of systems interoperability: Final Report. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TR-004 Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • O’Keefe, R.M., & O’Leary, D.E. (1993). Expert system verification and validation: a survey and tutorial. Artificial Intelligence Review 7, 3–42. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Object Management Group (OMG) (2006). Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, version 2.0 formal/06-01-01.

  • Object Management Group (OMG) (2009). OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure Version 2.2.

  • Object Management Group (OMG) (2010). Object Constraint Language specification, version 2.2 formal/2010-02-01.

  • Pencheva, E., & Atanasov, I. (2014). Engineering of web services for internet of things applications. Information Systems Frontiers. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9532-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruokolainen, T., Naudet, Y., & Latour, T. (2007). An ontology of interoperability in inter-enterprise communities. In Interoperability for enterprise software and applications (I-ESA).

  • Rushby, J. (1988). Quality measures and assurance for AI software. Vol. 4187. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Division.

  • Saleem, A., Honeth, N., & Norstrom, L. (2010). A case study of multi-agent interoperability in IEC 61850 environments, in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe).

  • Solhström, J. (2013). Investigation of the applicability of the framework IF/ELSE on healthcare situations. MSc thesis, KTH – Royal Institute of technology, Stockholm.

  • Sommestad, T. (2012). A Freamework and theory for cyber security assessments. PhD Thesis, KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

  • The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1990). Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, Std 610.12, New York.

  • Tolk, A., & Muguira, J.A. (2003). The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model. In The 2003 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullberg, J. (2012a). OCL statements for interoperability prediction, Technical report, KTH – Royal Institute of technology TRITA-EE 2012:033.

  • Ullberg, J. (2012b). Application of a Language for Interoperability Prediction, Technical report, KTH – Royal Institute of technology TRITA-EE 2012:034.

  • Ullberg, J., Chen, D., & Johnson, P. (2009a). Barriers to enterprise interoperability. In 2nd IFIP WG5.8 Workshop on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI) pp. 13–29.

  • Ullberg, J., Johnson, P., & Lagerström, R. (2009b). Education in Enterprise Architecture Analysis – Assessing interoperability of service oriented architectures. In 5th China – Europe International Symposium on Software Industry Oriented Education (CEISIE).

  • Ullberg, J., Franke, U., Buschle, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). A tool for interoperability analysis of enterprise architecture models using P-OCL. In Proceedings of the International conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications.

  • Ullberg, J., Johnson, P., & Buschle, M. (2012). A language for interoperability modeling and prediction. Computers in Industry, 63(8), 766–774. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2012.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullberg, J., Johnson, P., & Björkman, G. (2014).“A SCADA-specific interoperability modelling and prediction language” Submitted.

  • Verdanat, F. B. (2007). Interoperable enterprise systems, principles, concepts and methods. Annual Reviews in Control, 31(1), 137–145. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2007.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachman, J.A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26 (3).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electrical Engineering, Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Johan Ullberg & Pontus Johnson

Authors
  1. Johan Ullberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pontus Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Ullberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ullberg, J., Johnson, P. Empirical assessment of the accuracy of an interoperability prediction language. Inf Syst Front 19, 819–833 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9630-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9630-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation