Digital Health Interoperability Frameworks: Use of RM-ODP Standards
9
Citation
4
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
It has been ten years since the publication of our first paper reporting on the beginning of a new national e- health interoperability journey in Australia and the interoperability framework developed by National e-health Transition Authority (NEHTA) [1]. Many new technologies, standard efforts and architecture approaches have emerged since then. Many new lessons were also learned by different stakeholders involved in using the framework as a basis for interoperability conversations and e-health solution development. Some of these were reflected in the second version of the NEHTA Interoperability Framework. This paper provides further details regarding this new version of the NEHTA Interoperability Framework, shows in more detail how Reference Model for Open Distributed Systems (RM-ODP) standards were used to provide underpinning foundations for interoperability, and lists some other development in e-health interoperability. Further, the paper describes the use of RM-ODP in other interoperability frameworks and describes links between interoperability frameworks, enterprise and solution architectures and interoperability methodologies.Keywords:
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cross-domain interoperability
eHealth
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (3)
The paper proposes a concept of interoperability in the European Union, given the definition of «interoperability». Provides three levels of interoperability assessment: technology, systems, tasks. Interoperability standards are dealt with in three aspects: technical, organisational and semantic. Examples of EU countries with the most developed national framework for interoperability. An example of interoperability of services. В статье предложена концепция интероперабельности в странах Европейского cоюза, дано определение понятия «интероперабельность». Приведены три уровня оценки интероперабельности: технологии, систем, задач. Стандарты интероперабельности рассматриваются в трех аспектах: техническом, организационном и семантическом. Даны примеры стран Европейского cоюза с наиболее развитыми национальными рамками интероперабельности. Дан пример применения интероперабельности в реализации услуги.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (0)
Interoperability is the ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other systems,and to use the services exchanged so as to operate together in a more effective manner.The fact that interoperability can be improved means that the metrics for measuring interoperability can be defined.For the purpose of measuring the interoperability between systems,an interoperability assessment model is required.This paper deals with the existing interoperability assessment models.A comparative analysis among these models is provided to evaluate the similarities and differences in their philosophy and implementation.The analysis yields a set of recommendations for any party that is open to the idea of creating or improving an interoperability assessment model.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (1)
Even though most organizations are using enterprise resource planning applications, very few people understand the underlying interoperability nature within them. Interoperability is the ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other systems, and to use the services exchanged so as to operate together in a more effective manner. The fact that interoperability can be improved means that the metrics for measuring interoperability can be defined. For the purpose of measuring the interoperability between systems, an interoperability assessment model is required. A comparative analysis among these models is provided to evaluate the similarities and differences in their philosophy and implementation. The analysis yields a set of recommendations for any party that is open to the idea of creating or improving an interoperability assessment model.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (0)
시스템간의 상호운용성은 국방, 금융, 행정 등 임무 중심적인 시스템의 개발 및 운용에 있어서 많은 관심과 연구가 되고 있는 분야이다. 특히 시스템들이 이종의 컴포넌트들을 기반으로 개발됨에 따라 이종 분산 환경에서 컴포넌트 기반 시스템간의 상호운용성 확보는 매우 중요한 문제로 부각되고 있다. 본 논문은 이러한 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 이종 분산 컴포넌트 기반 시스템간의 상호운용 수준 측정에 필요한 표준 컴포넌트 규격 정의, LISI 능력 모델 확장, 그리고 CBD 방법론의 개발 절차를 반영한 상호운용 질의서를 포함하고 있다. 또한 서로 다른 방식으로 개발된 두 프로토타입 시스템에 대하여 상호운용성 수준을 측정하고 결과를 비교 분석하여 본 본문의 상호운용 능력 모델 및 질의서를 검증하였다. In this paper we describe interoperability maturity measurement, due to highlight a momentous issue on interoperability between heterogeneous distributed component based systems. it also suggests one of various ways for supporting interoperability between each other different component based systems, that is, using web services based mechanism and also revises 'LISI (Level of information systems interoperability)' model to measure interoperability maturity. We also develop the interoperability questionnaire based on the interoperability factors considered at each phase of component based development process, which is possible to measure interoperability maturity between heterogeneous distributed component systems. Based on revised interoperability maturity model and questionnaire we measure each interoperability maturity on examples of two different implementations, that is, web services and distributed object based mechanism. As a result, we suggest an enhanced interoperability way based on analysing problems af these measured results.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Component (thermodynamics)
Implementation
Cite
Citations (0)
NCW, a future warfighting concept of the ROK military, is based on interoperability. The LISI (Level of Information System Interoperability) model is the basis of the interoperability measurement of the Korean military systems in the requirement generation and acquisition process. The LISI model has a few limitations, however, in its interoperability measurements. It cannot be used to measure the interoperability of a system of systems (SoSs) because it is focused on measuring the interoperability of a given system or system pair. It does not consider the measurement of non-technical interoperability such as organizational interoperability. It also cannot provide quantitative information for the making of an interoperability decision because it uses the qualitative rather than quantitative approach. This study proposes the developmental direction of an interoperability measurement model for the ROK military. Ten models are listed from a comprehensive survey on interoperability measurement models, and they were deeply compared. Based on this analysis, a few suggestions are made for improving interoperability measurement. Interoperability, Interoperability Measurement, Interoperability Measurement Model, LISI
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (0)
Interoperability Frameworks for Networked Information Systems: A Comparative Analysis and Discussion
Interoperability frameworks provide specifications for different aspects of interoperability, for communicating and sharing information. Ten prominent industry-neutral interoperability frameworks are analyzed in this paper, distinguishing between operational interoperability frameworks and conceptual interoperability frameworks. To support this analysis, 16 criteria were defined, which represent the basis of a comparison framework. The operational interoperability frameworks analyzed have similarities and differences, and complement each other in some aspects (e.g. messaging service). The differences refer to the manner they handle (or not) different interoperability details relevant for performing e-business, e.g. only ebXML provides guidelines for negotiation and setting-up a collaboration agreement prior to conducting e-business. The five conceptual interoperability frameworks were analyzed based on specific structural elements, as they tackle differently the notion of interoperability, i.e. targeting types of integration, interoperability barriers, levels of interoperability. Despite the advances of interoperability frameworks, full interoperability is not yet achieved. The analysis performed allowed to conclude that although interoperability frameworks represent a good direction towards seamless interoperability in a networked environment, a big challenge is the harmonization of different aspects of the interoperability frameworks towards attaining full interoperability in complex cross-sectorial e-business scenarios, which can be addressed by joint actions of the scientific community and practitioners. Finally, this analysis yields a set of directions for future research work.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (5)
Throughout the history of human civilization, specialization and division of labour have been key factors of progress. They were made possible by the cooperation of ever-larger groups of people. Construction has been no exception. However, specialization leads to fragmentation - unless specialization is supported by approaches and technologies that enable people to work together and that systems are interoperable. When it comes to interoperability, the construction sector is often considered special, but it is not incomparable to other industries. Methodologically, this paper is based on the frameworks developed in the field of Enterprise Information Systems. It considers interoperability as a means to achieve a goal. Novel is the understanding that the ultimate goal is neither integration nor more efficient construction but rather the division of labour and specialization. A comparison of approaches to interoperability with those in other areas reveals some gaps. Research in construction information technology has focused on one type of interoperability - semantic interoperability - intending to achieve computer integrated construction. There are other types of interoperability - legal and organizational - and other levels of interoperability - federated and unified. These also deserve investigation. In the future, there will be a growing number of systems that would need to be made interoperable, especially in connection with the construction 4.0's Internet of Things, sensors, intelligent systems, etc. Since interoperability problems are caused by the emerging specializations, the problems of interoperability will never go away. The industry will have to recognize that it will always operate in an environment where interoperability is challenged. While research will continue working towards making systems interoperable and integrated it would need also to give attention to exploring collaboration in environments that are only partially interoperable.
Cite
Citations (54)
Context: Now a days Information technology has become a part of health-care delivery this makes life much easier for patients and health-care professionals. The increase in demand for communication among the different health information systems and health professionals has made interoperability complex and whereas interoperability is mainly focused at semantic and technical levels of communication. Yet, the social interoperability, an important part of communication between computerized systems and health professionals, is overlooked. Obje ctive s: In this study we explore the differences between interoperability and social interoperability. Furthermore investigate the social interoperability in practice and the problems that affect the health-care. Methods: We start with the literature survey to learn the definitions of interoperability and social interoperability. Later, case study approach is carried out to investigate the social interoperability in Interoperability. Interviews were also conducted as part of the observations in cases. Re sults: The similarities and differences in definitions of interoperability and social interoperability are sorted out from the literature study. Five cases have been investigated to identify the social interoperability in practice. Analyses of these cases have identified some of the major problems for health information systems that do not meet social interoperability. Conclusions: Interoperability definitions agree that interoperability is undoubtedly important for health data communication, but their goals in achieving interoperability is concerned only about computerized systems and very less focused on social interoperability. The case studies are used to find out the social communication using in health information systems. We realize that the communication between the users and the information systems are quite complex. The developed systems are witnessing the usability difficulties to the health-care providers that affect the patient care.
Cross-domain interoperability
WS-I Basic Profile
Cite
Citations (3)