This page helps the service architect decide whether or not to use an existing information exchange model.
The activities undertaken in the design step of the Service Orientation Process include the definition of the service (interface, service operations and information service payload). This activity leads, among other things, to the service payload (the logical representation of the information exchanged by the service interface operations).
The Get into SWIM presentations included advice on how to perform this activity. One of the key decisions to be taken is whether to:
This page expands on that presentation to give more advice to the service architect.
Making use of the work of others means you work less and the overall service ecosystem is more coherent
The following diagram outlines the questions to be taken into account.
Existing standardised information exchange models include:
They are agreed and published by a particular community of interest. There may be multiple versions of an exchange model e.g. IWXXM 1.1 was used by the SESAR programme but a v2.1 is now available and v3 is in pre-operations.
The exchange models listed above relate to three ICAO business domains (aeronautical, weather and flight information).
There is another question to be asked here: Do I need more than one information exchange model in the service? This is addressed at Using multiple exchange models together.
If the chosen exchange model (or models) is sufficient, the information service payload can be defined based on it.
This approach means that the service architect will not need to redo the semantic correspondence required in order to prove AIRM conformance in line with SWIM-SERV-022 Information definition and SWIM-SERV-023 AIRM conformance.
It could be that the exchange model does not cover the information exchange requirements. The service architect should then consider if it is best to amend the exchange model.
It may be best to amend it if, e.g.:
If the decision is to amend the exchange model, the applicable processes will need to be followed. For example, a change request to AIXM or FIXM will need to be raised.
This approach means that the owner of the exchange model will need to update the semantic correspondence required in order to prove AIRM conformance in line with SWIM-SERV-022 Information definition and SWIM-SERV-023 AIRM conformance.
Sometime the decision will be to not use an exchange model even as amended. In that case, a new model will need to be developed.
This approach means that the service architect will need to ensure that the semantic correspondence required in order to prove AIRM conformance in line with SWIM-SERV-022 Information definition and SWIM-SERV-023 AIRM conformance has been completed.
There are two options for creating a new model: