Question that I get during Systems Federation and Integration chat session (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_03_01).
NicolaGuarino: @Anatoly: still I miss the difference (if any) between federation, integration, sharing, interoperability....
AL: interoperability is a property of two or more subsystems to have meaningful exchange of mass, energy, information, execution flow, etc. (apply only part of this list for information systems) to enable service of system that these subsystems comprise (i.e. provide system operation process). Systems here are FunctionalObjects (systems components in terminology of Matthew West. There are two equal traditions for naming a System: functional/blackbox and constructional/witebox objects. Architecture define how construction can be regarded as a FunctionalObject, i.e. have system process that enable for constraction/structure to perform a function (to be FunctionalObject to perform a ServiceActivity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_interoperability not mention that interoperability exists not per se but only to provide a Service by a System that comprised of interoperable subsystems.
There is systems integration as a one of 25 systems engineering life cycle processes of ISO 15288:2008 --
6.4.5 Integration Process
6.4.5.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Integration Process is to assemble a system that is consistent with the architectural design.
This process combines system elements to form complete or partial system configurations in order to create a
product specified in the system requirements.
6.4.5.2 Outcomes
As a result of the successful implementation of the Integration Process:
a) A system integration strategy is defined.
b) Unavoidable constraints of integration that influence requirements are defined.
c) A system capable of being verified against the specified requirements from architectural design is
assembled and integrated.
d) Non-conformances due to integration actions are recorded.
I consider ISO 15288 as “classic systems engineering” standard that deal with “true systems” that have one architector in power. But in system of systems world we have another story: we need somehow work in a world where we can communicate about function but have not power to enforce Architectural Structure. We can only organize something and still get result: availability of a Service.
This was reflected in a definition of Architecture. In early definitions Architecture was defined as foundational structure of a system, but in recent definitions (ISO 42010) it became foundational organization due to fact that “Internet have organization but have no structure” (http://www.iso-architecture.org/ieee-1471/faq.html#whstruct).
Thus I define Integration as providing of interoperability according to structure-based architecture with static (or relatively static) assembly-type composition according to this structure (e.g. plug-in architecture).
Federation is providing of interoperability according to organization-based architecture with dynamic (on the fly) standard-based composition (e.g. bus architecture).
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29 – but they also not mention providing System that should perform Service and thus require interoperability of its subsystems. In federation case this System can be organized dynamically.
When you organize something it is usually means that it can be some kind of “flow” of Parts through the Whole. This is hardly to represent is as “assembly/disassembly”.
And I know nothing of “sharing” and “publishing” :-) I think this is a reference to the bus architecture.
Sure, different industries use this words in other meanings (e.g. ISO 18876 describe federation as integration and ISO 15926 that is implementation of ISO 18876 architecture call it integration too). If we are “federation industry” then we should agree on our own definitions.
Best regards,
Anatoly