re: The Interoperability files: Defining Interoperability and Integration

Giampiero Nanni — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:46:55 GMT

Dear Matt,

Your attempt to define – almost to a philosophical extent - Interoperability vs. Integration, is commendable, and opens the door to a new course of thought on the subject.

It is never comfortable or easy to dissent from a colleague and friend, but this time I am afraid I can’t refrain from expressing my “difference of opinion”, not only being the subject so close to my heart, but almost “contractually”, given my role in the Interoperability space. This disagreement though, can only be positive and fertile, in the pure spirit of Dialectic.

I can surely agree on your statement about the fundamental nature of “quality” for Interoperability, which in fact lays a seminal milestone in the attempt of differentiating the two concepts.

Nonetheless, the conclusion that “If I integrate systems A and B, then by default I have automatically created some quality (or level) of interoperability” brings to a potential Aristotelian “chicken & egg” dilemma:

“Have I created interoperability through the integration, or rather the inner interoperability, as a quality, of the two systems, has de facto allowed the integration in the first place?

In which case, your definition “Interoperability is a quality (attribute, property or feature) of integration.” cannot be accepted as is, and should instead be turned around as” Interoperability [of systems] is a condition sine qua non to achieve system Integration” (Giampiero Nanni, July 2009). Pre-Socratic Parmenides would have had, without doubt, strong opinions on whether Integration just “comes into being”, or comes from the interoperable nature of such systems, since “nothing comes from nothing”.

Similarly, your other definition “Integration is the process of linking together diverse systems or organizations.” hides a potential temporal dichotomy: is integration the “process” itself, or I can speak of “integration” only, and only if, the process has reached a logical or physical end, i.e. “integration” is the achieved result?

And for all the reasons above, I have to respectfully decline your final definition “ Interoperability is a property of integration that ensures a level of independence between existing and future systems or organizations.”, and, in a classic Hegelian Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis journey, I will rather return to the primordial vanilla-Wikipedia definition, which, if nothing else, leaves plenty of margin for any flavouring exercise, depending on the specific subject Interoperability or Integration refer to at any given time, be it “System integration”, “Organisational interoperability”, and so on.

And to end my chapter in this philosophical quarrel about definitions, I would dare quoting a reminiscence from my youth (sic!). In those days, some started to discover the “Zen” as a fashionable topic, and sure enough I ended-up reading a book lent to me by a friend – “101 Zen stories”. I can’t tell whether surprisingly or unsurprisingly, but only three of them persisted into my memory to this day. One in particular referred to the impossibility of defining the “Zen” and was (I report it as I remember it today) about an old man sleeping under a tree, and being woken-up by flowers falling on him from the wide branches. To his question “What is this for?”, some voice responded ”This is to recognise you for your definition of “Zen”. “But I have never given any definition of “Zen” replied the old man. And flowers kept pouring from the tree.

re: The Interoperability files: Defining Interoperability and Integration

matt deacon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:16:46 GMT

Giampiero,

Many thanks for your reply for which I am extremely grateful!

I have put up a further post reflecting your input that is greatly valued.

http://blogs.msdn.com/matt_deacon/archive/2009/07/06/the-interoperability-files-defining-interoperability-and-integration-part-2.aspx

Matt