this question is important and interesting.
IMHO there are two different types of interoperablities, which in
turm makes billions of them: you have interoperability (direct plug)
and metainteroperablity (the current through the plug can
interoperate through a converter when the plugs are of different
format). The end to end interoperability of the network devices, and
the brain to brain interintelligbility of the network users.
This is a major issue I am quite digging into, because this is also
true within the inner data structure. For example, if you define a
variable as a string, you cannot use a number. But in some cases the
number can be a pointer to a string. Interoperbility between strings
and numbers. This is for example ISO 3166 which codes the names of
countries (not countries) and ISO 639 the name of languages. What
real sense makes a langtag when people come and say these are details
conceived by politics?
Since a data can be a metadata for other data, this is an infinite
possible chain. Interoperability is the chaining. I call it for the
time being, the syllodata (gathering data) "shared layer?" by the
metadata and the data (a smart dioptre). I my network model the most
important layer is the interapplicative layer (extended services, my
job for 20 years). These two edge shims are quite important because
this where the OPES or security are. If a system have stable and
secure syllodata (the mortar), one can think it will be difficult to
break but this mortar which interlink has actually a name:
"inteligence" (what interlinks). You see quickly that even if you
have simple conditional interlinks, if you are recursive you can have
immensely complex system. This is where W3C semantic web and XML do
not work. They are mono-Internet defaulting to a flat space. Just an
hyperlink. Rigid end to end interoperability. Now, think about
smartlinks and you enter the distributed reality. This is also where
is operated the digital decoherence (on one side you have information
unsecure, multiple, repated quantums of data [datagrams] and on the
other side you have stable, readable, copyable files, music, mails.
What is also interesting is to compare this concept with the
infradata (internal data on the data) and the paradata (the data
about the way the data are - but not permanent), the archidata (the
permanent structure of the data), the philodata (what makes data to
fit the metadata). You then realise that the definition-information
couple is actually "intelligatum", a [definition -[inferentiation]-
information] trilogy. You can start from definition you have
induction, from information you have deduction, and from
inferentiation you have abduction.
I think it is very important for network protocols, because the more
their interoperability scales the more global they are. For example
"From:" has a low scalability (language, function). But "True" has an
high degree of scalability. But our common thiking makes is to be
binary (yes/not, 0/1). This blurs our thinking and our mutual
interoperability (protocols). Reality is yes/not/possible with all
the possible gradations. There is a South-American Indian language
which is ternary (Aymara). Kids think complex mathematics very easly.
Just a small quick attempt at interoperability.
I would be interested by your comments.
jfc
At 19:27 05/09/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>So, I was reading Brian's draft and I noticed that it talks a lot
>about interoperability, but does not actually define interoperability.
>
>As discussed in a recent IESG appeal, it's not clear that we have a
>clear statement of our interoperability goals. There's some text in
>section 4 of RFC 2026, but we seem to actually want to go farther than
>that text.
>
>I propose that we add a definition of interoperability to Brian's
>document. In particular, we want to talk about our desire that all
>implementations of one role of an IETF spec interoperate (at least
>with regard to mandatory features) with implementations of
>corresponding roles. For example if we have a client-server protocol,
>then you should be able to take any client and have it work with any
>server at least for the mandatory parts of the protocol. There are a
>lot of complexities--for example while we hope every IP stack works
>with every other IP stack, two machines may not share a common
>upper-layer protocol or application protocol. But I think we should
>try and write down the core concept of this.
>
>If people would find this useful I can try to write text.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf