Managing interoperability knowledge in open service ecosystems

Abstract

Establishing loosely coupled collaborations between services provided by autonomous enterprises poses several requirements and challenges for the surrounding service ecosystem. In such context emphasis must be laid especially on the correctness of available metainformation and its usage. Towards this purpose, we characterize service ecosystems by a set of metamodels. The metamodels include domain ontology metamodels defining the vocabulary and knowledge elements needed for collaboration establishment and management, and metamodels relating such domain ontologies with infrastructure services and service production facilities. In this paper we describe the metamodels and discuss their application for interoperability knowledge management.

Towards certified open data in digital service ecosystems

“…& Service value co-creation: the value is created inside the ecosystem in value networks formed by the ecosystem members (Stathel et al 2008;Wiesner et al 2012) (Kett et al 2008). & Enabling infrastructure: the ecosystem infrastructure supports the collaboration and cooperation of ecosystem members, providing the required services and tools (PantsarSyväniemi et al 2012) (Khriyenko 2012;Ruokolainen et al 2011;Ruokolainen and Kutvonen 2009). & Utilization of the ecosystem's assets: the existing ecosystem assets, such as the ecosystem's rules, methods, and practices for service engineering, enable co-innovation and cocreation of the services (Pantsar-Syväniemi et al 2012;Ovaska et al 2012;Ovaska and Kuusijärvi 2014).…”

A service requirements engineering method for a digital service ecosystem

“…In [25], six interoperability levels are defined for smart environments: conceptual, behavioural, dynamic, semantic, communication and connection. In [49], four inter-related metamodels are suggested for ecosystem interoperability: domain ontology, methodology, domain reference, and knowledge management metamodels. In addition to service interoperability, pragmatic interoperability [49] is achieved between ecosystem members when their intentions, business rules and organisational policies are compatible.…”

“…In [49], four inter-related metamodels are suggested for ecosystem interoperability: domain ontology, methodology, domain reference, and knowledge management metamodels. In addition to service interoperability, pragmatic interoperability [49] is achieved between ecosystem members when their intentions, business rules and organisational policies are compatible. To detect service interoperability, the service must be specified in an understandable way in the ecosystem's service registry.…”

Privacy Preservation Approach in Service Ecosystems

“…The Pilarcos architecture for the open service ecosystems ( Figure 1) includes as actors or artefacts 1) participating enterprises, with their public business service portfolios exported [3]; 2) business-domain governing consortia, with their public models of business scenarios and business models expressed as exported business network models (comprising of a set of business process descriptions and compulsory associations between roles in them, and governing policies about acceptable behaviour) [1]; 3) a joint ontology about vocabulary to be used for contract negotiation, commitment and control [6], [7]; 4) legislative rules to define acceptable contracts [7]; 5) technical rules to define conformance rules over all categories of metainformation held as collaboration and interoperability knowledge [8]; 6) infrastructure services to support partner discovery and selection, contract negotiation and commitment to new collaborations, monitoring of contracted behaviour of partners, and breach detection and recovery services; these services include trust aspects in decision-making on commitment and breaches [1], [2]; and 7) reputation information flow, collected from the past collaborations [4]. Figure 1 illustrates the ecosystem lifecycle.…”