Enhancing Effective Interoperability Between Mobile Apps Using LCIM Model

Integrated Intelligent Research (IIR) International Journal of Web Technology
Volume: 03 Issue: 01 June 2014 Page No.1-4
ISSN: 2278-2389
1
Enhancing Effective Interoperability Between Mobile
Apps Using LCIM Model
C.Shanthi 1
, Josphine 2
,
1
Dept of BCA & IT,Vels UniversityChennai-43
2
Dept of MCA,DR M.G.R University
Email: Shan_c08@yahoo.co.in, Chennai,josejbr@yahoo.com
Abstract— Levels of conceptual interoperability model is used
to develop the method and model towards enhancing
interoperability among mobile apps. The LCIM is used as
descriptive and prescriptive form and it also make available of
both metric of the degree of conceptual representation that
exists between interoperating systems. In descriptive form
LCIM is used to decrease the discrepancies in rating mobile
apps based on content by suggesting a rating system that is
completely based on interoperability. In the prescriptive form
it receives information for app development, which allows
producing apps with prominent level of interoperability. The
Levels of Conceptual Interoperability has the abstract
backbone for developing and implementing an interoperability
framework that supports to exchange of XML based languages
used by M&S systems across the web.
Index Terms— levels of conceptual interoperability model,
descriptive form, prescriptive form, mobile computing, Mobile
apps, interoperability rating. Software engineering
I. INTRODUCTION
LCIM model not only enhances the interoperability but it also
provides a better way to speed up mobile apps. The mobile
apps are at present rated based on content. There are no
definite approaches to rate the mobile apps on technical terms.
Currently many apps that are technically sound are being
rejected because of the content they provided so the rating
mechanism need to be changed thus soothing the developers.
This paper suggests that rating the mobile apps based on
interoperability would get to the bottom of the problem by
enhancing LCIM model.Mobile device continue to boost in the
market with improvement in mobile infrastructure, device
affordability and cultural acceptance. However, there is a
campaigning trend in mobile application but becoming
increasingly focused on applications with less interoperable.
On analyzing all the existing interoperability models, it was
found that LCIM model used in systems engineering domain
can be adapted to get better and effective interoperability of
mobile apps. This paper introduces a general model dealing
with various levels of conceptual interoperability that goes
away from the technical reference models for interoperable
solutions.The LCIM is used in both descriptive and
prescriptive form. In descriptive the LCIM can be used to
describe the levels and properties of interoperability and rate
the apps based on interoperability. In the prescriptive role, the
model prescribes the methods and requirements that must be
satisfied during engineering phases of app development to
attain a preferred level of interoperability. The Levels of
Conceptual Interoperability Model was evaluated to see at
what level it can support the different necessary artifacts. The
LCIM started as a model to make clear the needs, to be
specified and also assure interoperation on different levels.
Interoperation is only possible - in a meaningful way- if the
technical structures are associated with the conceptual ideas.
As such, the LCIM is a framework describing a spectrum how
this is technically implemented. It request that data (entities,
propertied concepts) and how they are used (process concepts,
methods) and the constraints are described by artifacts
following the ideas of system architecture and modeling as
known from the domain of system engineering.
II. CONCEPTUAL MODELING AND
INTEROPERABILITY
Zeigler proposed a model for understanding a system that is
within another observing system. He proposed three main
properties that must be supported and they are Perception,
Meta model and Mapping.
Perception
Observing system must be able to sense the behavior of the
system that is being observed.
Meta model
The observing system must have a Meta model of the
observed system.
Mapping
We must be able to map the experiential properties process
and constraints resulting into perceptions and Meta models.
These three property need to be clear in order for the apps to
interoperate efficiently. Thus conceptual models are the best
way to express these premises more clearly.LCIM is applied to
an idea about its potential and limitations in the current
simulation interoperability approaches, in particular the High
Level Architecture (HLA) and Base Object Models (BOM). It
emphasizes the relevant accurate engineering methods and
principles and replaces ad-hoc approaches.A conceptual model
is the intangible and simplified representation of systems for
some specific purpose by languages, figures, tables, or other
suitable artifacts. Robinson defines a conceptual model as "a
non-software specific description of the simulation model that
is to be developed, describing the objectives, inputs, outputs,
content, assumptions, and simplifications of the model." [1]
Following Robinson’s proposal, conceptual models and
conceptual modeling:
Reduce ambiguity, incompleteness, inconsistency, and
mistakes in the description of requirements, Facilitate the
communication between stakeholders in modeling and
simulation processes, such as users, architects, analyzers,
domain experts, modelers, and developers,

ISSN: 2278-2389
2
Form the basis and start for successive phases (analysis,
design, implementation and application), Facilitate the
Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) of models
and systems, and Promote the reusability, interoperability, and
composability of simulation resources.
Now we observe that conceptualization promotes
composability. Composable systems are extremely self
contained which means that a system can be deployed
independently. The module will work together with other
component but the dependant components are replaceable.
Stateless means that the components indulge the requests from
other components independently and the requests are not
connected to any previous requests.When apps interoperate
efficiently they must be self contained and stateless, which can
be effectively achieved through conceptual modeling. LCIM
was chosen as a successful model for enhancing
interoperability among mobile apps as it basically depends on
conceptual modeling and makes the apps composable.
III. LEVELS OF CONCEPTUAL
INTEROPERABILITY MODEL
LCIM was initially proposed by Tolk and Muguira [2]. After
continuous evolution, it forms the latest version illustrated in
Figure 1. The seven levels from “no interoperability to
conceptual interoperability‟ is notated from L0 to L6, whose
implications are listed in Table 1. Bottom-up refers to from L0
to L6, top-down vice versa. Besides the simulation
interoperability community, LCIM is used by scientists of
various disciplines to contract with troubles in their
communities, e.g. system biologist and ontology researchers.
Figure 1. The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model
The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM) was
evaluated; to what extent it can support different necessary
artifacts. The results are based on research that tried to create
the different features highlighted in various publications on the
LCIM into an overview and to obtain new insights. It is first
used as an outline for conceptual modeling. Second, its
applicability as a persuasive, as well as a prescriptive model is
evaluated. Finally, it is useful to give the impression of being
at current simulation interoperability standards, in particular
the High Level Architecture (HLA) and Base Object Models
(BOM).
IV. INTIATE A SYSTEMS ENGINEERING FOR
APPS INTEROPERATION
Systems engineering defines a lot of principles that maintain
the design of systems and documenting their functionality and
interfaces in a way ensuring that independently designed
systems can interoperate with each other. This section, we will
initiate the ideas of conceptual modeling and capturing the
resourceful artifacts in a way, using the LCIM as the guiding
frame, in support of App interoperation.
V. DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ROLES
Systems engineering distinguishes between explaining
(descriptive) and mandating (prescriptive) models. LCIM can
serve in both functions [3]: In descriptive role, LCIM
describes the levels and properties of interoperability existing
in a given app. In the prescriptive role, LCIM prescribes the
methods and requirements that must be satisfied during the
engineering of an app to achieve a desired level of
interoperability. Referring to the definitions of descriptive
linguistics [4] and prescriptive linguistics [16] in addition to
the definitions of descriptive and prescriptive models by
Department of Defense (DoD)[5], the definition of descriptive
and prescriptive roles of LCIM are defined and their
relationship is clarified.
Descriptive Role
Developers brand their applications according to Google Play
ratings system, which consists of four levels, Everyone Low
maturity, medium maturity, high maturity. The apps get
discarded due to the content they provide even they provide
the users with a lot of technical comfortness. Descriptive form
of LCIM allows us to rate them based on interoperability. The
definition of descriptive model by the DOD [5], characterizing
the descriptive function of LCIM used to depict or analyze the
ability, properties, characteristics and the levels of conceptual
interoperability of an existing system or system of systems In
prescriptive role, LCIM serves as documentation and maturity
model, the goal of descriptive role describes how existing
systems are interoperating and what level of conceptual
interoperability can be reached by user's detailed approaches
without prescription. In descriptive role, LCIM is used to show
the gaps that need to be closed.
The characteristics of the descriptive role are listed as:
Real systems or system of systems that have been
implemented or existed;
The specific technical approaches, implementations and
documentations are known;
LCIM is used as a maturity model. The lower levels must have
been satisfied; When they reaches higher levels.
The levels are common compassionate bottom-up. The lower
level is the idea of the higher and the higher needs the
implementation of lower levels.
The processes of descriptive role describe the documentation,
specific approach, and implementation of interoperating
systems from L0 to L6 according to Table 2, and evaluate the
levels they have reached.

ISSN: 2278-2389
3
Table 2. Descriptive Role of LCIM
Levels Description of Interoperability at this level
L6 Interoperating apps at this level are completely
conscious of each others information, processes,
contexts, and modeling assumptions.
L5 Interoperating apps can also reorient information
formation and using based on understood changes
to meaning, due to changing context as time
increases.
L4 Interoperating apps is aware of the context
(system states and processes) and meaning of
information being exchanged.
L3 Interoperating apps are exchanging a set of terms
that they can semantically parse.
L2 Apps have an established protocol to exchange the
right forms of data in the right order, but the
meaning of data elements is not recognized.
L1 Apps can exchange data e methodological
connection(s)
L0 NA
Prescriptive Role
The mobile apps need to be modeled and implemented in a
systematic way so as to boost interoperation among them. The
prescriptive form of LCIM guides to build our app in a
structured way which makes the apps to reach a high level of
interoperability. It also prescribes the approaches and
requirements that must be satisfied to accommodate a target
degree of conceptual representation between systems.
The characteristics of the prescriptive role are listed as the
following: Real systems or system of systems do not continue
living in the phase of theoretical modeling; As an
interoperability guidance model, LCIM is used to suggest the
required conditions and potential engineering approaches to
reach a certain interoperability level; Top-down mappings are
required from formation to implementation. If problems are
dealt at the conceptual level without any real systems, the
lower levels are unreachable until real systems are
implemented; The levels are equally supportive bottom-up,
mapped, and refined top-down. Higher levels need the
implementation of the lower, so there is much work to do for
the mapping from the higher to the lower; Getting the higher
level is not adequate, full band interoperability at all the levels
is needed in particular for the prescriptive role of LCIM; As
the advance of techniques, the suggested approaches by the
prescriptive role are always varying and embryonic and only
have proportional constancy in a certain period.The contents
of prescriptive role at each level are illustrated in Table 3.
From which Ontology, Unified Modeling Language (UML),
Model Driven Architecture (MDA), and Discrete Event
System Specification (DEVS) are the important approaches to
develop the conceptual interoperability and composabilityThe
prescriptive role of LCIM is used to facilitate the
transformation from conceptual modeling to systems
implementation focusing on the interoperation aspects. LCIM
is a guide - or check list - how to reach the target. In this case,
it builds logically top-down.
Comparison and Relationship between Descriptive and
Prescriptive Roles
The descriptive and prescriptive roles apply to LCIM through
different viewpoints. To reach semantically lossless
interoperation, all levels are needed in both cases. Description
and prescription have differences and similarities as illustrated
in Table 4.The combinations can facilitate better solutions to
interoperation and composition problems. There are two kinds
of combinations. Prescription can be first used with the
analysis to the interoperation objectives, costs and conditions.
Next descriptive role can be used to estimate the
interoperability of that process. The prescription - description
–prescription again - description again iterative cycle can
based.
be used for the solution. The other kind of combination is
reuse-
Some systems or subsystems have existed or been
implemented and need to be integrated to reach a certain
interoperation goal. The description and evaluation -
prescription - objective execution - description - evaluation
iterative cycle can be used. In both cases, LCIM can be seen as
the two sides of a coin - one is what exist or have done, the
other is what needs to be done. LCIM is a good theory or
model to evaluate the levels of interoperability.
I. CONCLUSION
This paper will describe a framework that will merge the
various specification schemes and apply a methodology to
define the structural variances between components. The
mobile apps are facing many challenges in their
interoperation; the limited resources significantly impede the
improvement of interoperability between mobile apps. In
LCIM the apps can be rated based on interoperability. Apps of
different vendors can interoperate efficiently and effectively
when LCIM is followed while implementation. When vendors
permit users to interoperate apps with third party module, this
allows users to manage their apps more efficiently instead of
downloading lots of apps. This helps users to select apps from
different vendors as a choice of sticking to apps of single
vendor.

ISSN: 2278-2389
4
Table 3. Prescriptive Role of LCIM REFERENCES
[1] Robinson S. "Conceptual modelling for simulation part I: Definition and
requirements". Journal of the Operational Re-search Society, 2008,
59:278-290. A. N. Netravali and B. G. Haskell, Digital Pictures, 2nd ed.,
Plenum Press: New York, 1995, pp. 613-651.
[2] Tolk, A. and Muguira, J.A. (2003). The Levels of Conceptual
Interoperability Model (LCIM). Proceedings IEEE Fall Simulation
Interoperability Workshop, IEEE CS Press
http://kiwigis.blogspot.in/2011/07/app-interoperability-
conundrum.html.http://blogs.sybase.com/carolynfitton/2011/10/applicati
on- interoperability-and-the-mobile-enterprise.
[4] Luis Corral, Alberto Sillitti, Giancarlo Succi. Preparing Mobile Software
Development Processes to Meet Mission-Critical Requirements.
[5] Florence T. Balagtas-Fernandez. Model-Driven Development of Mobile
Applications.
[6] Rawan Tarek Khalil and Ala’ Fathi Khalifeh.System. Design and
Software Engineering Challenges in Building an Android Application: a
Case Study.
[7] Rajesh Krishna balan, Joao petro souse, Mahadev satyanarayanan.
Meeting the software engineering challenges of adaptive mobile
applications.
[8] Tolk A, Muguira JA. "The levels of conceptual interoperability model".
Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Orlando, Florida:
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2003.
[9] Tolk A, Turnitsa C, Diallo S. "Implied ontological representation within
the levels of conceptual interoperability model". Intelligent Decision
Technologies, 2008, 2:3-19. H. Sun, W. Kwok, and J. Zdepski,
“Architectures for MPEG compressed bitstream scaling,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 191-199, Apr. 1996.
[10] Wikipedia. "Descriptive linguistics". 2008/2008-07-29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics.
[11] "DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) glossary". DoD 5000.59-M.
United States: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, 1998.
https://www.dmso.mil. R. Nicole, “Title of paper with only first word
capitalized,” accepted for publication in IEEE Trans. Broadcast
Technology.
[12] R. Hema1, C. Shanthi2, R. Madhavarajan3, Dr. A. Muthukumaravel4”
Enhancing Interoperability Among Mobile Apps Using LCIM Model
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified
Journal, Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2013)
Levels Prescription of
Requirements to
reach this Level
Common
Reference
Engineering
Approaches
L6(Conc
eptual)
A shared
understanding of the
conceptual model of
a system (exposing
its information,
processes, states,
and operations).
DoDAF; Military
Mission to Means
Framework;
Platform
Independent Models
of the Model Driven
Architecture;
SysML
L5(Dyna
mic)
The means of
producing and
consuming the
definitions of
meaning and context
is required.
Ontology for
Services; UML
artifacts; DEVS;
complete UML;
BOM
L4(Prag
matic)
A method for
sharing meaning of
terms and methods
for anticipating
context are required.
Taxonomies;
Ontology; UML
artifacts, in
particular sequence
diagrams; DEVS;
OWL; MDA
L3(Sema
ntic)
Agreement between
all systems on a set
of terms that
grammatically
satisfies the
syntactic level
solution
requirements is
required.
Common Reference
Model, Dictionaries;
Glossaries; Protocol
Data Units; RPR
FOM
L2(Synta
ctic)
An agreed-to
protocol that all can
be supported by the
technical level
solution is required.
XML; HLA OMT;
Interface
Description
Language; CORBA;
SOAP
L1(Techn
ical)
Capability to
produce and
consume data in
exchange with
systems external to
self is required.
Network connection
standards such as
HTTP; TCP/IP;etc.
L0(No) NA NA

Enhancing Effective Interoperability Between Mobile Apps Using LCIM Model

More Related Content

Similar to Enhancing Effective Interoperability Between Mobile Apps Using LCIM Model (20)

More from ijbuiiir1 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Enhancing Effective Interoperability Between Mobile Apps Using LCIM Model