1. Title: to modify choose 'Insert' then 'Heater and footer' Date: to
modify

2. INTRODUCTIE / INHOUD
 Erwin/Jasper
 TNO Interoperabiliteit en Standaarden
 Onderzoek
 Oplossingen (MOSES, Pressure Cooker, eValidator, ADONIS, BOMOS, etc.)
 Toepassing (SETU, BFS, STOSAG, Kennisnet, TLN, etc.)
 Universiteit Twente
 Programma

3. STANDAARDEN IN ALLE SOORTEN EN MATEN

4. DE LIFT

5. WAT IS EEN SEMANTISCHE STANDAARD?
 Gaat over betekenis van informatie
 Uitgewisseld door computer systemen
 (Tussen organisaties)
 De E-Portfolio standaard!
 Soort van taal die computers spreken om de uitgewisselde informatie van
elkaar te kunnen begrijpen

6. VOORBEELD – HET URENBRIEFJE

7. INTEROPERABILITY
EIF

8. WAT IS HET PROBLEEM?
 Puzzelstukjes: De uitwisseling gaat niet optimaal, dat noemen we
beperkte interoperabiliteit.
 Semantiek is een probleem.
 Beschikbaarheid, adoptie en
kwaliteit van semantische standaarden.
 Wat kost dat?
 Automobiel industrie VS: 5 miljard
 Electro industrie VS: 3.9 miljard
 Capital Facilities industrie VS: 15.8 miljard
 Zorg VS: 29 miljard (98.000 levens)
 Rampen: Volendam ramp

9. NASA Mars Climate Orbiter
 After a 286-day journey, the probe fired
its engine on September 23 1999 to
push itself into orbit.
 The engine fired as the spacecraft came
within 60 km of the planet
But that was about 100 km closer than
planned and about 25 km beneath the
level at which the it could function
properly.
NASA lost the $125 million spacecraft
Mars Climate Orbiter
because Lockheed Martin used imperial http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
units whilst NASA used metric.
Source:http://www.interoperabilityconference.org/microsoft.ppt

10. SEMANTIEK – VOORBEELD 2 TRIAGE
 “The German triage system also uses four, sometimes five colour codes
to denote the urgency of treatment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage 7/7/12 10

11. MIJN ONDERZOEK
 Aangetoond: Probleem met de kwaliteit van semantische standaarden
 Aangetoond: “Onderzoekshiaat”
 Mijn ontwerpbijdrage:
1. Meer inzicht in semantische standaarden
2. Meer transparantie in kwaliteit
3. Kwaliteit verbeterbaar maken

12. De resultaten 1/3

13. De resultaten 2/3

14. De resultaten 3/3
Lord Kelvin: "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."

15. HET IQMSS
(INSTRUMENT FOR QUALITY MODEL OF SEMANTIC STANDARDS)

16. HET SEMANTISCHE STANDAARDEN MODEL
D. Toepassing
Semantische
C. Organisatie A. Context
Standaard
Metadata
B. Inhoud

17. SSM IN DETAIL

18. UITSTAPJE: PROFIELEN / INTERNATIONALE
STANDAARDEN
MAAR WE HEBBEN TOCH UBL? (OF OAGIS, XBRL, HR-XML, ETC)
 Standaarden waren geen doel op zich toch? Voor interopabiliteit is strakheid nodig: dus
profielen.
 Lastig is de juiste balans (met internationale standaarden, flexibel en strakheid, etc.)
 Architectuur – Strategie (codelijstjes,.localizations, etc.)

19. HET KWALITEITSMODEL
Kwaliteitsmodel van Semantische Standaarden
(Quality Model of Semantic Standard)
A. Product Kwaliteit B. Proces Kwaliteit C. Kwaliteit in Gebruik
Ontwikkeling en
Inhoud van de De toepassing van
beheer van de
standaard de standaard
standaard
(de specificatie) (de implementaties)
(de organisatie)

20. Measurable Concept Definition Remarks
A. Product Quality Measurable Concept
A. Product Quality
B. Process Quality
Definition
The total attributes of a standard that This includes both internal and external for mea
Remarks/Synonyms/Direction
The qualityits ability to satisfy stated and quality in ISO terms.
determine of the sequence of interdependent and Organizational quality.
Measurable implied needs when used under in the standard. Remarks/Synonyms
linked procedures that resulted specified
Definition
B1. Development & conditions. (ISO 9126) how the standard
Concept The professionalism of This concept is based on BOMOS. (Folm
Maintenance in
A1. Functionality
C. Quality The capabilityto which maintenance are organized. Punter,fulfills the functional
development and the a standardprovide used specification 2011)
The extent of the standard to can be The Quality in use.
B1.1 Practice
D&M Process functions which meet stated theirimpliedto needs of the intended job. guide developers in
The capability users to meet and needs a
by specified of the D&M process to suit The D&M should
needs when the environment. effectiveness,
standardization standardwith under
achieve specified goals is used achieving quality.
B1.1.1 specified conditions. (ISO 9126) specifiedthe
The availability of a document describing
efficiency and satisfaction in a Including both the initial development
B. Process Quality A1.1 Completeness The extent to and(ISO 14598) is of
Documented
C1.
development which a standard process. This includes other terms like relevancy
context of use. maintenance
The adoption of depth, and scope for
approach and change procedure. A pate
Process Acceptance sufficient breadth,the standard within the and suitability, and is the functional view
Adoption/acceptancepart of the process, as
check should be in practice.
A1. Functionality A2. Usability A3. Durability the task at hand. (Wand & Wang, 1996)
domain. on the contentsigned IPR statementTheworkgroup
as a of the specification. of
C1.1 Solution participants.
The extent to which solutions providers have at hand isproviders providean
task Solution aimed at solving products
B1.1.2
Providers The time needed for changes to take place, interoperability problem. used by the end standa
adopted the standard. and servicethe version history of the
Check that are
A1.1.1 Changes
Time for The level of functions specified in themaintenance if the standardofby solution
beginning with the status of the new Indicates the overview covers all
users. The adoption the maintenance reque
Covered Functions specification in relation to the standard. functionality required to solve the
request until the release of the history.
providers is a multiplier for adoption.
C. Quality in Practice B1.1.3
C1.1.1
A1.1.2
interoperability problem. fixes that solves major Is it possible way is the process agile enough
The ability to release bug
Implementations and
The level of implementations in the products
Unplanned Changes The specified the standard.
In what for end
interoperability problem. users to use the
errors services offered by solution providersWhen information using products off thethe stand
within level of information enable a quick next version of
standards by elements are missing
B1. Development &
A1.1 Completeness A2.1 Understandability A3.1 Adaptability
and to to support the interoperability or when too which information elements
Covered Information elementsbe used by end users. shelfin many the bug is fixed? Are bug fixes
B2. Communication B3. Organization in End User provided by solution providers?
have beenreleased?5 of products and bug was
Maintenance Products/Servicesproblem. Checkadded, it How longa negative
the top will have after the
impact on identified?
interoperability.
service in the market on their standard
B.1.1.4
A1.2 Accuracy The capability of a thorough and documented review of needed specificity andmeasured are t
The presence of the standard to provide The level Aspects that need to be
usage.
A1.1.1 Covered Functions A2.1.1 Availability of A3.1.1 Modularity Review Procedure true data with the needed degree of
process.
C1.1.2 The availability of tools and components that Check if toolsof review cycles and the numb
number or components and
precision in both semantic meaningare
Knowledge Representations Availability of precision. (ISO to simplify implementations of
can be used 9126 & ISO 25012) technical syntax. (This does nottypes ofbut
reviewers. Different cover, stakehold
available, for example open source
Implementation the standard. relates to,reviewers? Public review round? Passiv
components. of the content:
the quality
A1.1.2 Covered Information A3.1.2 Dynamic Content consistency (A1.3)) active (like testing) reviews?
reviews or
B1.1 D&M Process B2.1 Support B3.1 Governance Support Tools
C1. Acceptance C2.
A2.1.2 Structure of the
Interoperability B1.1.5
A1.2.1
C1.1.3 The level of detailof consultants, and language, The standard address a outside the to mod
usage of a methodology, including
The availability and in-depth of the
The Does the expertise methodology will
A proper available specific lead
Use of Methodology scope. the process.
Availability of within
Specificity implementation partners as a support for problem or a generic problem? Is there an explic
SSO. that are maintainable.
Specification A3.1.3 Extensibility A1.2.2
Implementation The match between the unambiguously
implementation. Syntactic and semantic for the provide
How choice organizations methodology?
many made accuracy. (For
B1.1.1 Documented Process B2.1.1 Helpdesk B3.1.1 Decision Making B1.1.6
Precision
Support requested of advanced tooling within the process. surnameon the standard? and the too
The usage and provided precision. (ISO example Automation reduces errors. List
consultancy (instead of name,
A1.2 Accuracy Use of Tooling The extent to which the end users have not limited to 10use of the standard. developm
C1.2 End Users 25012) that are normally used in the
The actual digits))
A2.1.3 Readability of the A1.3 Consistency The extent theconsistency in using the
adopted of standard. process.
The degree of coherence and freedom of
B1.1.2 Time for Changes Specification
B2.1.2 Champion B1.1.7
C1.2.1 The extent to which the D&M process is organized Thethe percentage of use? Of total will
The level of usage within the intended contradiction within the standard (ISOgroups
same values (vocabulary control) and end What is absence of stakeholder
C1.1 Solution Providers C2.1 MaturityA3.2 B3.2 Fitness
Maintainability Open Process
Market elements to convey similar concepts and 25012). The quality of the contentmeans that no
in user audience. it is accessible for all.
openness, i.e. an impact. Open access of the
organizations? Of total transactions?
A1.2.1 Specificity Penetration meaning in a standard. (Stvilia et al., 2007) different models. bygroup is excluded. Differen
stakeholder
Differentiated different user groups.
B1.1.3 Unplanned Changes A1.3.1 Recognition The level of ambiguity thethe information The quality of the structuringstakeholders? (e.g.
C1.3 The extent to which of standards receive rates for different and
The credibility.
A2.1.4 Conditions Specified
Information elements, and consistency of use.
external recognition. definition academia and SME’s have lower
of the information elements.
A1.2.2 Precision C1.1.1 Implementations in C2.1.1 Stability B3.2.1 Reputation of SSO ambiguity
C1.3.1 The external formal recognition of the Bothparticipation fees than large industry
external status and reputation in
B2.2 Adoption Strategy A3.2.1 Seperation of
B1.1.4 Review Procedure Products/Services A2.1.5 Learning Time
End User Concerns A1.3.2
Recognition The level of ambiguity of the function
standard. The quality of the IsOpen meeting: Are the meeti
players). the standard formally
the domain. structuring and
Function ambiguity elements and consistency of use.
Achievements definition locations accessible? Telco’s and e-mail
acclaimed functions, processes
of the(eg. ISO status) Is the and
B3.2.2 Expertise of SSO
C2.1.2 Changes per Release business rules. acclaimed by governments? cale
standard to limit meetings/costs? Is the
used
C1.1.2 Availability of
B1.1.5 Use of Methodology B2.2.1 Adoption Plan A1.4 Compliancy The capability of the standard to adhere The compliancy when(Lammers et the 2010)
(e.g. published?explain standards are
comply or other list in al.,
A3.2.2 Localisations B1.2 Versioning The capability of the standard toor
to other standards, conventions have versioning Netherlands) howdoesconformance required
in Explicit version management is
implemented, and But the it also measure
A1.3 Consistency Implementation Support
C2.1.3 Versions in B3.2.3 Quality of Active
Use regulations in laws, but also to define possibility to standardthe appropriate expectations.
place that combines stability and the the raise can be assured.
to this fame/reputation of the standard?
Tools make changes.
A2.2 Testability Community what compliancy implies for this standard. Is it above or under par? (Chase, 1995)
B1.1.6 Use of Tooling B2.2.2 Certification B1.2.1
A3.2.3 Dependability C2. (ISO organization25012)
The 9126 & ISOtwo orprocedures of version
The ability of and more systems or The capability of the standard to policy on ve
Documented and published
Version
Interoperability The compliance version management, also into achieve meaningful communication
A1.4.1 numbering andto exchange information andCompliancy with other standards an two
components level to other standards, management including at approach for
A1.3.1 Information Ambiguity
C1.1.3 Availability of C2.1.4 Life Cycle
Management relation to backwards compatibility.
External compliance conventions, or regulationshaslaws and
use the information that in been levels: 1. Standards used to create this minor
version numbering, major and
between systems.
B1.1.7 Open Process
Implementation Support A2.2.1 Test Services A3.2.4 Financial
B3.3 Version Continuance similar prescriptions. & Lebreton, 2007) standard (e.g. UML). example with the numberi
exchanged. (Legner releases, for
A1.3.2 Function Ambiguity C2.1 Maturity The capability of the standard to be a stableStandards onstandard will positively new versio
2. A mature different levels of a
What is the trigger to start
and proven solution. interoperabilityinteroperability. of maintenance
Based on the number
influence (e.g. laws, or technical
C2.1.1 A stable release schema means ample time in Count the numberreleases are within in num
standards). requests? Or of versions limited
C2.2 Correctness Advancedness Orientation
A3.3 B3.3.1 Profit A1.4.2
Stability The availability of a strict set of testable
between releases. Is there a strict formulationthere tool support to d
on time-basis? Is if versions
several years. Too many the
B1.2 Versioning
C1.2 End Users A2.3 Openness
Compliance defined rules that define compliancy with the within a short time will temper and mainten
with version management both
implementation is to be conformant to the
standard. standard? requests? Is backwards compatibility
This supports strict
adoption and interoperability. A
A1.4 Compliancy B3.3.2 Revenue Model implementations. onefor a certain period?
guaranteed major release per
maximum of
C2.2.1 Interoperable Installed Base
A3.3.1 B1.2.2
A2. Usability The capability of the standard has to be
The ability within the D&M process to deal with contains terms like implementabilityrequests
Is an overview of maintenance
Also year is recommended. Is there a fixed
B1.2.1 Version Management Implementations Maintenance maintenance requests. release process (e.g. a new as to the MRs
present on the website? Are
understood, learnt, used and attractive to and readability, and is needed soversion will
C1.2.1 Market Penetration A2.3.1 One World Requests the user, when used under specified estimate the efforts required for Jan. 1How many
traceable, including history? st)?
become available yearly on
A1.4.1 External Compliance A3.3.2 Technical C2.1.2 The number of changes that have been made Count the number Requests, and how often
conditions. (ISO 9126) Maintenance of changes per
implementation.
B1.2.2 Maintenance Request Advancedness A2.1 Changes per The capability of the standard to enable
to the standard. To enable these processed, interpreted by do the
release. be read and and how often
it to
A2.3.2 Availability C2.2.2 Fault Tolerance Understandability
Release the user to understand the standard for Too manyto changes?
lead changes might indicate that
users. (ISO 25012)
A1.4.2 Compliance Defined usage for particular tasks and conditions current all stakeholders might to submit M
Arequality is low andinvited have
C1.3 Recognition B2. Communication of use. (ISO 9126)
The totality of communication activities related to impact on interoperability.
an The presentation of the standard to the
A2.3.3 Use / Re-Use A3.3.3 Business Processes
C2.2.3 Completeness A2.1.1 The standard.
the level of available knowledge of the The availability theworld.
outside adaptations needed in
Calculate of representations other
B2.1 Support
Availability of standard in different represented support. than the specification, such as based on
The availability of knowledgeable forms. Support aimed at helping stakeholders
software implementations
knowledge implementation guides, “how to’s”, “forthe stand
(the choice of) implementing
function points for a new version. How
C1.3.1 Recognition C2.2.4 Relevancy Conceptual
A3.3.4 B2.1.1
representations The availability of knowledgeable support from the isItthe oldest version of the
dummies”, training, etc. implementations, and
old will improve
Advancedness Helpdesk
A2.1.2 The structuremaintaining the standard.
organization of the specification contains Understandable and complete structure of requ
valuable feedback on maintenance
standard in use? And how many
Achievements
A2.4 Technical Complexity Structure of the all needed and expected subjects in a the specification between the current or any othe
versions in document. forum,
Is there a helpdesk,
Specification logical manner. (Hyatt & Rosenberg, version? for asking questions and receivin
means
C2.3 Cost & Benefits C2.1.3 1996) number of versions that are concurrently Too many versions will tamper many chan
The appropriate answers? How

21. VOORBEELDEN VAN METINGEN
 Produkt Kwaliteit:
 Leesbaarheid van de specificatie: “15 jaar en ouder”
 Eenduidige Definities: “Naam = de naam van een persoon”
 Kwaliteit in Gebruik:
 Relevantie: Onderdelen in standaard die in implementaties niet
gebruikt worden.

22. UITSTAPJE: QUALITY IN PRACTICE
 Compleetheid en Relevantie (uit: Quality in Practice)
 Zhu and Wu: Completeness and Relevance voor XBRL
Ui S
 Compleetheid: Zit alles er in? Completenessi
Ui
 Relevantie: Wordt alles gebruikt?
Ui S
Relevancyi
S
 Resultaat: Schokkend!

23. RAZEND INTERESSANT VOOR ELKE STANDAARD
 Aanvullend voor SETU

24. DE RESULTATEN
 Verrassend en inspirerend!
 Completeness and Relevance behoorlijk goed
 Zeer waardevolle input voor nieuwe versie van een standaard.
 Beroerde implementatie kwaliteit: Wat is de reden? En oplossing?
(cursus?)

25. IQMSS
 Situationeel ingezet: dus niet het hele kwaliteitsmodel.
 Niet alles is extreem helder/concreet.
 Wel gevalideerd (cases / workshops)
 Garantie op nieuwe inzichten is er! Zelfs voor de meest ervaren
standaardisatie-ontwikkelaar.

26. SAMENVATTING & RELEVANTIE
Welvaart & Welzijn
verhoogd
Interoperabiliteit
verhoogd
Semantische
Kwaliteitsinstrument verbeterd
Standaarden
Scope Onderzoek