Towards a Rosetta Stone for (meta)data: Interoperability

Interoperability is directly dependent on machine-actionability: datasets A and B can be said to be interoperable if there is an operation X that can be applied equally to both. Because of this dependency, interoperability inherits from machine-actionability that it is not a Boolean property, but rather describes a continuum, and its degree depends on the number of operations that can be applied to a given type of (meta)data. Interoperability also involves the ability to identify the type of (meta)data within a given dataset that can be processed by a given operation, and vice versa.

(Meta)data are composed of terms (here, meant in a broad sense, including also symbols and values) that form statements. Both, terms and statements, carry meaning, and thus semantic content, and both are required for the successful communication of information. The interoperability of terms and statements between a sender and a receiver of (meta)data is therefore a prerequisite for their successful communication. Successfully communicating (meta)data between machines and between a machine and a human being requires not only their successful transmission, so that the receiver can read them (i.e., readability), but also their successful processing, so that the receiver understands their meaning (i.e., interpretability) and can use them in another context by applying specific operations to them (i.e., actionability)

Obviously, interoperability plays a very important role in this communication process and is also central to the realization of FAIR (meta)data. Without interoperability, the findability and reusability of (meta)data is limited, and without interoperability there is no machine-actionability. This central role of interoperability has also been recognized by the EOSC. In their EOSC Interoperability Framework (20), they distinguish four layers of interoperability:

Leave a Comment