Hubbry Logo
Data exchangeData exchangeMain
Open search
Data exchange
Community hub
Data exchange
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Data exchange
Data exchange
Data exchange
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Data exchange is the process of moving data from one information system to another. It often involves transforming data that is native to the source system into a form that is consumable by the target system or to a standardized form that is consumable by any compatible system. In particular, data exchange allows data to be shared between computer programs.

Data exchange is similar to data integration except that data may be restructured with possible loss of content. There may be no way to transform a particular collection based on exchange constraints. Conversely, there may be multiple ways to transform the data, in which case one option must be identified in order to achieve compatibility between source and target.

There are two main types of data exchange: broadcast and peer-to-peer (a.k.a. unicast).[1] For broadcast, data is transmitted simultaneously to all consumers. Just as a conference call, all participants get the exact same information from the speaker at the same time. [2] For peer-to-peer, data is sent to a single receiver; defined by a specific address. For example, a letter goes to just one mail box.[3]

Single-domain

[edit]

In some domains, a multiple source and target schema (proprietary data formats) may exist. An exchange or interchange format is often developed for a single domain, and then necessary routines (mappings) are written to (indirectly) transform/translate each and every source schema to each and every target schema by using the interchange format as an intermediate step. That requires less work than writing and debugging the many routines that would be required to directly translate each source schema directly to each target schema.

Examples of these transformative interchange formats include:

  • Standard Interchange Format for geospatial data;
  • Data Inter chance Format for spreadsheet data;
  • Open Document Format for spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents;
  • GPS eXchange Format or Keyhole Markup Language for describing GPS data;
  • GDSII for integrated circuit layout.

Representation

[edit]

A data exchange (a.k.a. interchange) language defines a domain-independent way to represent data.[4] These languages have evolved from being markup and display-oriented to support the encoding of metadata that describes the structural attributes of the information.[5]

Practice has shown that certain types of formal languages are better suited for this task than others, since their specification is driven by a formal process instead of particular software implementation. For example, XML is a markup language that was designed to enable the creation of dialects (the definition of domain-specific sublanguages).[6] However, it does not contain domain-specific dictionaries or fact types. Beneficial to a reliable data exchange is the availability of standard dictionaries-taxonomies and tools libraries such as parsers, schema validators, and transformation tools.[citation needed]

XML

[edit]

The popularity of XML for data exchange on the World Wide Web has several reasons. First of all, it is closely related to the preexisting standards Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and as such a parser written to support these two languages can be easily extended to support XML as well. For example, XHTML has been defined as a format that is formal XML, but understood correctly by most (if not all) HTML parsers.[6]

YAML

[edit]

YAML was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor with notion similar to reStructuredText and wiki syntax. YAML 1.2 also includes a shorthand notion that is compatible with JSON, and as such any JSON document is also valid YAML; this however does not hold the other way.[7]

REBOL

[edit]

REBOL was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor. It uses a simple free-form syntax with minimal punctuation and a rich set of data types (such as URL, email, date and time, tuple, string, tag) that respect common standards. It is designed to not need any additional meta-language, being designed in a metacircular fashion which is why the parse dialect used for definitions and transformations of REBOL dialects is also itself a dialect of REBOL.[8] REBOL was used as a source of inspiration for JSON.[9]

Gellish

[edit]

Gellish English is a formalized subset of natural English (language), which includes a simple grammar and a large, extensible dictionary (taxonomy) that defines the general and domain specific terminology, whereas the concepts are arranged in a hierarchy, which supports inheritance of knowledge and requirements. The dictionary also includes standardized fact types. The terms and relation types together can be used to create and interpret expressions of facts, knowledge, requirements and other information. Gellish can be used in combination with SQL, RDF/XML, OWL and various other meta-languages. The Gellish standard is a combination of ISO 10303-221 (AP221) and ISO 15926.[10]

List

[edit]

The following describes and compares popular data exchange languages.

Name Schemas Flexible Semantic verification Dictionary Information Model Synonyms and homonyms Dialecting Web standard Trans-formations Light-weight Human readable Compatibility
RDF Yes[1] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Subset of Semantic web
XML Yes[2] Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes subset of SGML, HTML
Atom Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown No Unknown Yes Yes Yes No No XML dialect
JSON No Unknown Unknown Unknown No Unknown No Yes No Yes Yes subset of YAML
YAML No[3] Unknown Unknown Unknown No Unknown No No No[3] Yes Yes[4] superset of JSON
REBOL Yes[7] Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes[7] Yes Yes[5]
Gellish Yes Yes Yes Yes[8] No Yes Yes ISO No Yes Partial[6] SQL, RDF/XML, OWL
Columns
  • Schemas – Whether supports representing domain specific data structure definition
  • Flexible – Whether supports extension of the semantic expression capabilities without modifying the schema
  • Semantic verification – Whether supports semantic verification of the correctness of expressions in the language
  • Dictionary – Whether includes a dictionary and a taxonomy (hierarchy) of concepts with inheritance
  • Information model – Whether supports an information model
  • Synonyms and homonyms – Whether supports the use of synonyms and homonyms in expressions
  • Dialecting – Whether is available in multiple natural languages or dialects
  • Web standard – Whether is standardized by a recognized body
  • Transformations – Whether includes a translation to other standards
  • Lightweight – Whether a lightweight version is available
  • Human readable – Whether expressions are understandable without training[11]
  • Compatibility – Which other tools can be used or are required

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Data exchange

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Data exchange is the process of transferring between different systems, platforms, or stakeholders, often involving the use of standardized formats and protocols to ensure compatibility, , and . This encompasses a wide range of types, from real-time inputs to archived records and third-party datasets, forming a fundamental aspect of modern in and operations. In , data exchange enables seamless integration across heterogeneous environments, supporting applications in industries such as , healthcare, and by unifying fragmented data sources to derive actionable insights. Key methods include application programming interfaces (APIs) like and for real-time interactions, extract-transform-load (ETL) processes for batch handling, file transfers using formats such as CSV or XML, and streaming pipelines for continuous data flow. Common protocols facilitating these exchanges include for web-based transfers, SFTP for secure file movement, and message-oriented systems like AMQP for event-driven communication. Standards play a critical role in data exchange to promote interoperability; notable examples include Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) standards developed by ANSI X12 for business document automation, which have been maintained for over 40 years to drive electronic transactions. Other widely adopted formats encompass JSON for lightweight, human-readable data serialization and XML for structured markup, alongside binary options like Protocol Buffers for high-performance scenarios. The benefits of effective data exchange are substantial, including enhanced collaboration, accelerated AI model training with up-to-date datasets, and significant economic impact—such as the projected EUR 328 billion value of cloud data flows in the EU by 2035. However, challenges persist, including compatibility issues with legacy systems, data privacy risks under regulations like GDPR, and the need for robust governance to maintain quality and security.

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Data exchange is the process of transferring between different systems, platforms, or stakeholders, often involving the use of standardized formats and protocols to ensure compatibility, , and efficiency. In many cases, particularly in database and enterprise contexts, this involves moving from a source structured under one to a target under a different , aiming to create an instance that accurately reflects the source while ensuring completeness and soundness where possible. This often requires transforming formats or mappings to achieve syntactic (structural and format) and semantic (meaning-preserving) compatibility between the systems. is to the process, encompassing measures to protect , , and during transfer, especially under regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Key characteristics of data exchange include the directionality of flow, which can be unidirectional (from source to target) or bidirectional (allowing updates in both directions), and the need for compatibility at both syntactic and semantic levels to minimize loss of . Unlike , which typically involves granting access to data without necessitating transformation or , data exchange emphasizes active reformatting and mapping to make data usable in the receiving . Data exchange differs from in that it focuses on discrete, often one-off transfers of data instances rather than establishing ongoing or a unified view across multiple sources. While integration seeks to combine data from various origins into a cohesive, continuously updated repository, exchange targets specific mappings for temporary or periodic exchanges without merging entire systems. The scope of data exchange encompasses point-to-point models (one-to-one transfers between systems) and broadcast models (one-to-many dissemination), but excludes comprehensive system mergers or full-scale data warehousing.

Historical Evolution

The evolution of data exchange began in the with the advent of mainframe computers, where data was primarily transferred via batch methods using magnetic tapes and punched cards. Early systems like IBM's mainframes relied on these physical media for offline data movement between machines, as interactive interfaces were absent, limiting exchanges to sequential, non-real-time processes. In the , the need for standardized electronic communication grew with the rise of computerized business transactions, leading to the introduction of (EDI). EDI enabled the structured exchange of documents like invoices and purchase orders between organizations, reducing manual errors and paper usage. A pivotal development was the ANSI X12 standard, established in 1979 by the American National Standards Institute's Accredited Standards Committee, which provided a framework for North American EDI implementations. The marked a shift toward more flexible markup-based approaches, exemplified by the standardization of the (SGML) as ISO 8879 in 1986. SGML introduced a meta-language for defining document structures, facilitating across systems and laying the groundwork for later formats like in 1991 and XML in 1998. Concurrently, emerged as a key technology in the late to address heterogeneity in distributed systems, allowing applications on diverse platforms to interoperate through abstraction layers that handled communication protocols and data translation. A significant milestone was the 1988 adoption of ISO 9735, which defined syntax rules for ( for Administration, Commerce, and Transport), promoting global EDI consistency. The 1990s and early 2000s saw the proliferation of web technologies, accelerating data exchange via internet protocols. SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol), initially released in 1998, standardized XML-based messaging for remote procedure calls, enabling robust web services in enterprise environments. In 2000, Roy Fielding's dissertation introduced REST (Representational State Transfer), an architectural style leveraging HTTP for simpler, stateless data exchanges that emphasized scalability and resource-oriented interactions. The open-source movement further influenced this era, notably with JSON's invention in 2001 by Douglas Crockford, a lightweight format derived from JavaScript that gained traction for its human-readable structure and ease in web applications. Post-2010, data exchange transformed with the boom and the API economy, where became central to ecosystems enabling seamless integration across services. Cloud platforms facilitated on-demand, scalable exchanges, shifting from rigid standards to dynamic, real-time models that supported massive volumes in distributed environments. The 2010s saw the rise of technologies, such as (2011) for event streaming and architectures promoting API-driven exchanges. Emerging standards like (2015) offered flexible querying for client-specific data needs. In the 2020s, advancements in AI and privacy regulations, including GDPR (effective 2018), have emphasized secure, federated data exchanges, with paradigms (circa 2019) enabling decentralized domain-oriented sharing. As of 2025, and AI model pipelines continue to drive innovations in low-latency, privacy-preserving data flows.

Types of Data Exchange

Single-Domain Exchange

Single-domain data exchange involves the transfer of data between components or systems within the same or compatible , where shared standards and semantics reduce the necessity for complex transformations or mappings. This approach is particularly prevalent in structured environments like or (ERP), where data remains confined to a unified , such as student records in K-12 systems or business objects in corporate software. By limiting exchanges to intra-ecosystem interactions, it ensures consistency without the overhead of reconciling disparate ontologies. Methods for single-domain exchange often rely on neutral interchange formats that act as intermediaries between proprietary schemas, enabling seamless mapping while preserving data integrity. The Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF), an XML-based standard, exemplifies this by facilitating the exchange of educational data—such as enrollment or assessment records—across compatible school management systems without requiring custom integrations. Similarly, the Open Document Format (ODF), an ISO/IEC 26300-standardized XML-based specification, supports the transfer of office productivity files (e.g., spreadsheets and presentations) between applications like LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice, ensuring fidelity through its open structure. These formats promote interoperability within the domain by providing a common serialization layer. The primary advantages of single-domain exchange include enhanced efficiency and reduced latency, as the inherent shared semantics eliminate extensive validation or conversion steps, allowing for faster processing and lower . In ERP systems, this manifests in streamlined module interactions; for example, SAP's One Domain Model provides a unified semantic framework for business objects like customers or products, enabling real-time data synchronization across applications such as and SuccessFactors with minimal overhead, thereby supporting agile operations and consistent reporting. This internal cohesion also minimizes errors from misinterpretation, fostering reliable decision-making within the enterprise. Despite these benefits, single-domain exchange is not immune to challenges, particularly in handling schema evolution during version updates or system upgrades within the domain. As business requirements evolve, schemas may require modifications—such as adding fields or altering types—which can disrupt compatibility if not managed through forward- or backward-compatible strategies, potentially leading to inconsistencies or . Effective involves versioning protocols and automated tools to propagate changes across components, ensuring continuity without full reimplementation.

Multi-Domain Exchange

Multi-domain exchange refers to the transfer of between heterogeneous systems across distinct organizational or functional domains, where incompatibilities in structures, semantics, and necessitate mapping, , and oversight mechanisms to ensure accurate and secure . This process addresses the challenges of integrating disparate sources, such as varying schemas and protocols, often requiring intermediate layers like data fabrics or canonical models to reconcile differences and maintain during exchange. Common scenarios for multi-domain exchange include (B2B) transactions, where trading partners automate the sharing of orders, invoices, and shipment details to streamline supply chains; (IoT) ecosystems, involving device from multiple manufacturers or networks for applications like smart cities; and federations, which enable resource and sharing among distributed providers to support scalable computing needs. These exchanges typically employ models for direct bilateral transfers or broadcast models for disseminating to multiple recipients, facilitating collaboration without central intermediaries. Key requirements for effective multi-domain exchange emphasize the adoption of canonical models—standardized representations that serve as intermediaries for semantic mapping and translation between source and target systems—to minimize errors and ensure consistency. In integrations, for instance, standards provide such a framework, using identifiers like Global Trade Item Numbers (GTINs) and Information Services (EPCIS) to enable visibility and across partners, allowing real-time event for inventory management and compliance. protocols further enforce policies on access, validation, and auditing to manage trust and compliance in these cross-boundary interactions. The practice of multi-domain exchange has evolved from siloed, proprietary systems—often reliant on early standards like (EDI) for basic B2B connectivity—to federated models that promote decentralized collaboration. Post-2010 advancements, particularly the integration of blockchain technology, have enhanced trust through immutable ledgers and smart contracts, enabling secure, verifiable in federated environments without exposing raw data. This shift supports scalable ecosystems, as seen in blockchain-empowered frameworks for IoT and cloud , reducing reliance on central authorities while preserving privacy.

Data Representation Formats

Markup Languages

Markup languages are text-based systems that employ tags to describe and structure , facilitating self-documenting exchanges that include both content and metadata for interpretation. These languages enable , allowing to be nested and related in a tree-like manner, which supports complex, platform-independent representations suitable for interchange between diverse systems. By embedding descriptive elements directly within the , markup languages promote and extensibility without requiring external schemas for basic comprehension. The Extensible Markup Language (XML), standardized by the (W3C) as a Recommendation in February 1998, serves as a foundational for data exchange. XML allows users to define custom tags and document structures, making it highly adaptable for various domains. Key features include , introduced by the W3C in 2001, which provides a mechanism for validating document structure and data types, and XML namespaces, formalized in 1999, which prevent naming conflicts in combined documents. XML has been extensively adopted in web services, particularly as the payload format in protocols like (Simple Object Access Protocol), enabling structured communication between applications over networks. XML traces its roots to the (SGML), an ISO standard (ISO 8879) published in 1986 that established generalized markup principles for document description independent of presentation. While , developed as a simplified SGML application for hypertext on the web, excels in rendering visual content, its fixed tag set and focus on display limit its utility for flexible data exchange. Complementing XML in semantic contexts, the (RDF), a W3C Recommendation from February 1999, uses XML syntax to represent data as subject-predicate-object triples, supporting interconnected knowledge graphs for the . Markup languages like XML offer strengths in human , where tags explicitly denote data meaning, aiding and manual editing, and extensibility, allowing domain-specific vocabularies without altering the core syntax. However, they suffer from , as repetitive tags inflate file sizes during transmission, and parsing overhead, where processors must navigate and validate the hierarchical structure, potentially increasing computational demands compared to more compact formats.

Serialization Formats

Serialization formats enable the conversion of complex data structures, such as objects or graphs, into linear byte sequences suitable for transmission over or storage in files, with the process being reversible through deserialization to reconstruct the original structure. This flattening preserves the data's semantics while minimizing overhead, making it essential for efficient data exchange in distributed systems. JSON (JavaScript Object Notation), introduced in 2001 by , is a lightweight, text-based format that represents data using key-value pairs, arrays, and nested objects in a syntax derived from . It is language-independent and widely adopted for its simplicity and ease of parsing, particularly in RESTful APIs where it serves as the default payload format for request and response bodies. YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language), first specified in 2001, extends human readability through indentation-based structure and supports scalars, sequences, and mappings, functioning as a superset of to allow seamless parsing of JSON documents. Its design emphasizes interaction with scripting languages while maintaining compactness for configuration and data serialization tasks. Other prominent formats include , developed internally by starting in 2001 and open-sourced in 2008, which uses a binary encoding scheme defined by a to achieve high efficiency in size and parsing speed for structured data. Similarly, , initially released in 2009, provides a compact binary format with embedded schemas that support evolution, allowing data to be read using updated schemas without loss of compatibility. Serialization formats involve trade-offs between human readability and performance: text-based options like and facilitate debugging and manual editing due to their legible syntax but result in larger payloads and slower processing compared to binary alternatives like and , which prioritize compactness and rapid serialization/deserialization for high-throughput applications.

Domain-Specific Formats

Domain-specific data exchange formats are tailored to particular industries or applications, incorporating specialized vocabularies and semantics to ensure precise representation and interpretation of . These formats go beyond general-purpose structures by embedding field-specific terminology, rules, and ontologies directly into the , facilitating accurate communication within constrained contexts such as , healthcare, or . By aligning data structures with domain requirements, they minimize misinterpretation and support automated processing tailored to sector needs. One prominent example in is Gellish, a family of formalized natural languages developed by Andries van Renssen in the mid-2000s, initially detailed in his 2005 PhD thesis at . Gellish uses a taxonomic dictionary-ontology and simple syntax to enable system-independent data storage, exchange, and integration, particularly for product modeling and building information models (BIMs). It supports semantic networks for expressing relations between concepts, allowing for logic-based reasoning and in engineering databases without losses. In the realm of dynamic scripting and network applications, (Relative Expression-Based Object Language) serves as a cross-platform format introduced in 1997 by Carl Sassenrath. Designed for efficient over networks, REBOL employs lightweight dialects—domain-specific sublanguages—that represent both data and metadata in a compact, human-readable form, enabling seamless and transmission across diverse devices. Its relative expression semantics allow for flexible, context-aware data handling, making it suitable for distributed applications with minimal overhead. Healthcare relies heavily on HL7 (Health Level Seven), a set of messaging standards established in 1987 by a coalition of healthcare organizations to standardize the exchange of clinical and administrative data. HL7 defines message structures for patient records, orders, and results, incorporating domain-specific elements like codes to ensure consistent interpretation across systems. Versions such as HL7 v2 and FHIR build on this foundation, supporting real-time interoperability in electronic health records (EHRs). Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) variants further illustrate domain adaptation, with UN/EDIFACT emerging in 1987 under the United Nations' auspices as an international standard for trade transactions. UN/EDIFACT uses message segments and elements defined for processes, such as invoices and shipping orders, to automate B2B exchanges in global commerce. Similarly, XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language), initiated in 1998 by the XBRL International , tags with domain-specific taxonomies for regulatory reporting, enabling automated analysis and comparison of economic data. These formats offer significant benefits, including reduced ambiguity through integrated dictionaries and ontologies that enforce precise semantics, as seen in HL7's uniform encoding of medical to prevent interpretation errors across providers. This precision enhances data quality and supports domain-specific automation, such as validation in financial filings via taxonomies. However, drawbacks include limited outside their intended domains, where mismatched vocabularies can hinder cross-sector exchanges, requiring additional mapping layers that introduce complexity and potential errors.

Exchange Mechanisms and Protocols

File-Based and Batch Methods

File-based and batch methods facilitate asynchronous data exchange by transferring bulk data through files stored on shared systems or transported via protocols like FTP, making them ideal for high-volume, infrequent transfers where real-time responsiveness is not required. These approaches are particularly suited to legacy systems and large-scale operations, as they allow organizations to substantial datasets without continuous connectivity, reducing resource strain during peak hours. Common techniques include the use of flat files and CSV formats for representing simple, tabular data, which enable straightforward extraction and loading in batch workflows. For efficiency, data is often organized into zipped archives to compress files and minimize transfer times, especially when handling large volumes over networks. Scheduling is typically managed through tools like cron for Unix-based systems or dedicated ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) platforms such as Apache Airflow, which automate periodic execution of batch jobs, ensuring consistent data movement without manual intervention. Key standards for these methods include transmitted over AS2, a protocol developed in the 2000s that secures batch exchanges of structured business data using HTTP/ with encryption and asynchronous Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) for reliability. SFTP (SSH File Transfer Protocol), an extension of the SSH standard, provides secure file transport by encrypting both commands and data streams, supporting authentication and integrity checks for batch file deliveries. In practice, these methods are employed for nightly backups, where automated scripts consolidate and transfer database dumps to offsite storage, and financial reporting, such as generating end-of-day transaction summaries for . Their advantages encompass simplicity in implementation, high through retry mechanisms in protocols like SFTP, and cost-effectiveness for non-urgent tasks; however, a primary drawback is the inherent delay in availability, which can hinder timely decision-making in dynamic environments.

Real-Time and API-Based Methods

Real-time and API-based methods enable immediate data exchange in dynamic environments through synchronous request-response interactions or continuous streaming, minimizing latency compared to batch processes. These approaches support low-latency communication in applications requiring instant updates, such as financial trading systems or collaborative tools, by leveraging network protocols that facilitate on-demand data retrieval or bidirectional flows. SOAP, introduced in 2000 as a lightweight XML-based protocol for web services, defines a standardized messaging framework for exchanging structured information in distributed systems using SOAP envelopes, headers, and bodies over HTTP or other transports. It supports both request-response and one-way operations, enabling reliable invocation of remote procedures in enterprise environments. REST, formalized in 2000 through Roy Fielding's dissertation on network-based architectures, employs HTTP methods like GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE to manipulate resources identified by URIs, often serializing data in lightweight formats for stateless, scalable interactions. This style promotes cacheability and uniform interfaces, making it foundational for web APIs that handle diverse client requests efficiently. gRPC, developed by and open-sourced in 2015, utilizes for transport and for binary serialization, allowing high-performance remote procedure calls with features like and bidirectional streaming to reduce overhead in microservice communications. , released by in 2015 as a for APIs, enables clients to request precisely the data needed in a single query, avoiding over-fetching or under-fetching common in traditional endpoints by defining schemas and resolvers for flexible . WebSockets, standardized in RFC 6455 in 2011, establish persistent, full-duplex connections over TCP, supporting bidirectional streaming for real-time data exchange without the polling overhead of HTTP, ideal for applications like live chat or gaming. Advancements in these methods have integrated with architectures, where applications decompose into small, independent services communicating via APIs for enhanced and , as outlined in foundational descriptions from 2014. Event-driven architectures further extend this by using publish-subscribe models, exemplified by —a distributed messaging system introduced in 2011 for high-throughput log processing and event streaming across services.

Challenges and Solutions

Interoperability Issues

Interoperability issues in data exchange arise primarily from technical barriers that hinder seamless compatibility between disparate systems. Schema mismatches occur when the structural definitions of data—such as field names, hierarchies, or relationships—differ across systems, leading to failures in or interpretation during exchange. Data type inconsistencies further exacerbate this, where the same conceptual data element, like a date or numerical value, is represented differently (e.g., string versus ), causing validation errors or loss of precision in transmission. Version drift compounds these problems as schemas evolve over time without coordinated updates, resulting in outdated mappings that break integrations and require manual . To address these core issues, solutions emphasize standardized intermediaries and transformation mechanisms. data models provide a neutral, shared representation that acts as a pivot for translating between heterogeneous schemas, enabling consistent mapping without direct pairwise alignments. In the , Enterprise Service Buses (ESBs) emerged as platforms to facilitate this by messages, applying transformations, and enforcing protocols in service-oriented architectures, thus decoupling applications while resolving mismatches at runtime. By the 2010s, schema registries like the Confluent Schema Registry advanced this approach for environments, allowing centralized , compatibility checks, and automated evolution to mitigate drift in real-time exchanges. Standards play a pivotal role in promoting semantic alignment to overcome these barriers. The (W3C) has driven efforts through initiatives like the standards, which use ontologies and RDF to ensure meaningful data interpretation across domains, reducing ambiguities in exchange. Tools such as , standardized by W3C in 1999, enable declarative transformations of XML documents to align schemas, supporting rule-based conversions that preserve structure and content fidelity. Success in resolving interoperability issues is often measured by round-trip fidelity, which assesses the degree to which remains unchanged after exchange and reverse transformation, and by rates in mappings, tracking the of failed or inaccurate integrations in scenarios. These metrics highlight the effectiveness of solutions, with (e.g., >95% preservation) indicating robust compatibility in production environments.

Security and Privacy Concerns

Data exchange processes are vulnerable to several critical security risks that can compromise the , , and of . Unauthorized access occurs when entities gain entry to exchanged data without proper permissions, potentially leading to exposure of sensitive details and enabling further attacks like or . Data tampering involves malicious alteration of data during exchange, which undermines its reliability and can result in incorrect or operational failures. in transit represents another major threat, where attackers capture data as it moves between systems, allowing for , modification, or theft without detection. To address these risks, robust protective measures are essential. Encryption via Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3, standardized in 2018, secures data in transit by providing forward secrecy and resistance to known vulnerabilities through streamlined handshakes and mandatory authenticated encryption. Authentication mechanisms like OAuth 2.0, defined in 2012, facilitate secure delegated access by allowing clients to obtain limited tokens without sharing user credentials, thereby reducing exposure during exchanges. JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), as specified in RFC 7519, complement this by enabling compact, self-contained claims for verifying identities and permissions in a stateless manner across distributed systems. Additionally, anonymization techniques such as generalization—replacing specific values with broader categories—and perturbation—adding noise to data—prevent re-identification of individuals in shared datasets, ensuring privacy without fully discarding utility. Privacy frameworks further guide secure data exchange, particularly for sensitive information. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective in , mandates safeguards for cross-border transfers, including adequacy decisions for recipient countries or binding corporate rules to maintain equivalent protection levels and avoid unlawful processing. For handling sensitive data, provides a rigorous mathematical framework that bounds the influence of any single record on query outputs by injecting calibrated noise, thus protecting individual privacy while enabling aggregate analysis. Emerging approaches enhance trust and verifiability in data exchanges. Zero-trust models, as outlined in NIST SP 800-207, eliminate implicit assumptions of by enforcing continuous , least-privilege access, and micro-segmentation for every transaction, regardless of network location. Blockchain-based solutions like Hyperledger Fabric, launched in 2017, support verifiable exchanges through private data collections that allow selective endorsement and commitment among authorized channel members, ensuring immutability and confidentiality without public exposure.

References

  1. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-exchange
  2. https://enterprisearchitecture.harvard.edu/data-exchange-mechanisms
  3. https://x12.org/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030439750400725X
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284895755_Data_Sharing_and_Exchange_General_Data-Mapping_Semantics
  6. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/libkin/teach/dataintegr08/intro.pdf
  7. https://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2013/Papers/CIDR13_Paper45.pdf
  8. https://blog.share.org/Technology-Article/a-brief-history-of-the-mainframe
  9. https://www.dataversity.net/articles/brief-history-data-storage/
  10. https://datainterchange.com/what-is-edi/
  11. https://www.truecommerce.com/ansi-x12/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1761852/
  13. https://www.iso.org/standard/17592.html
  14. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~dgorin1/451/middleware/middleware.pdf
  15. https://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2001/04/04/soap.html
  16. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/api-economy/
  17. https://twobithistory.org/2017/09/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-json.html
  18. https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/
  19. https://graphql.org/learn/
  20. https://docs.ed-fi.org/reference/data-exchange/udm/getting-started/ed-fi-domains/
  21. http://specification.sifassociation.org/Implementation/NA/4.3/
  22. https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
  23. https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_COMMERCE_INTEGRATIONS/e1131537fd3a43a6b600feddfbae7ab8/158fabb32fe34d32a8d5a094918abbbe.html
  24. https://www.omegacube.com/blog/data-analytics/centralized-database-system-within-an-erp-an-underdog-with-many-benefits/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/schema-evolution
  26. https://estuary.dev/blog/real-time-schema-evolution/
  27. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10327791/
  28. https://www.jitterbit.com/blog/what-is-b2b-integration/
  29. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/12/4404
  30. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.500-332.pdf
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138912862500619X
  32. https://semarchy.com/blog/multi-domain-master-data-management/
  33. https://www.gs1.org/standards/epcis
  34. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/20/9459
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922005816
  36. https://www.confluent.io/learn/data-serialization/
  37. https://devopedia.org/data-serialization
  38. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8259
  39. https://jsonapi.org/
  40. https://yaml.org/spec/history/2001-05-26.html
  41. https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/
  42. https://protobuf.dev/history/
  43. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/avro/site/publish/releases.pdf?p=1197837
  44. https://avro.apache.org/docs/1.11.1/specification/
  45. https://protobuf.dev/overview/
  46. https://www.gellish.net/
  47. https://www.hl7.org/about/index.cfm
  48. https://www.gellish.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Gellish-Syntax-and-Contextual-Facts-Nov-2020.pdf
  49. http://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-ir-andries-van-renssen/formalized-natural-languages/paperback/product-21904436.html
  50. https://www.rebol.com/what-rebol.html
  51. https://www.ringholm.com/docs/the_early_history_of_health_level_7_HL7.htm
  52. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec25/rec25_95_r1079rev1e.pdf
  53. https://www.edifactory.de/edifact/about-edifact
  54. https://www.xbrl.org/the-standard/what/what-is-xbrl/
  55. https://www.capminds.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-hl7-standards-everything-healthcare-providers-need-to-know/
  56. https://www.xbrl.org/the-standard/what/taxonomies/
  57. https://itirra.com/blog/hl7-advantagesdisadvantages/
  58. https://www.thinkitive.com/blog/hl7-vs-other-healthcare-data-standards-a-comparison/
  59. https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/batch-processing.html
  60. https://tipalti.com/resources/learn/flat-file-integration-vs-api/
  61. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.powershell.archive/compress-archive?view=powershell-7.5
  62. https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/cron-job-in-data-engineering
  63. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4130
  64. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/sftp/
  65. https://estuary.dev/blog/batch-data-processing/
  66. https://www.integrate.io/blog/as2-vs-sftp/
  67. https://www.confluent.io/learn/event-driven-architecture/
  68. https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
  69. https://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
  70. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf
  71. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm
  72. https://grpc.io/docs/what-is-grpc/introduction/
  73. https://engineering.fb.com/2015/09/14/core-infra/graphql-a-data-query-language/
  74. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455
  75. https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
  76. https://notes.stephenholiday.com/Kafka.pdf
  77. https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/renner_community.pdf
  78. https://docs.snomed.org/implementation-guides/context-representation-implementation-guide/2-terminology-and-information-models-in-healthcare/2.3-data-representation-challenges
  79. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202312.0508/v1
  80. https://unstats.un.org/capacity-development/meetings/UNSD-DFID-SDG-Open-Data-Bangladesh/documents/Day-2-Interoperability.pdf
  81. https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2015/53696/53696.pdf
  82. https://vldb.org/cidrdb/papers/2023/p52-ousterhout.pdf
  83. https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/
  84. https://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-10/
  85. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.09.23293900v2.full-text
  86. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-47r1.pdf
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/interception-attack
  88. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446
  89. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749
  90. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2015/nist.ir.8053.pdf
  91. https://gdpr-info.eu/chapter-5/
  92. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-226.pdf
  93. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/NIST.SP.800-207.pdf
  94. https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/private-data/private-data.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.