Skip to content

EOSC-Nordic Service Interoperability Framework


WP3 recently hit another significant milestone – completing the EOSC-Nordic Service Interoperability Framework (EOSC-Nordic IF). EOSC-Nordic Service IF is based on European Interoperability Framework (EIF) and EOSC Interoperability Framework (EOSC IF). The recommendations from both frameworks were taken into account and analyzed from the similarities and differences point of view.

The challenge with existing interoperability frameworks was that they either focus on research and data outputs (i.e., EOSC Interoperability Framework) or generic IT services (i.e., European Interoperability Framework). However, an efficient research data lifecycle is supported by services, software, and infrastructure. Therefore, it is essential to focus on research outputs and the underlying enabling aspects and mechanisms.

According to WP3 leader Ilja Livenson, following EOSC-Nordic Interoperability guidelines is crucial for reducing the complexity of EOSC from the point of view of a researcher. “We have to make it easier for a researcher to use services from different countries. Positive is that service providers showed a high degree of awareness and openness, as only in cooperation can we implement these guidelines into reality,” said Livenson.

The work of WP3 has focused on highlighting service interoperability aspects relevant for all services geared towards open science. We are closer to identifying which types of services are expected to comply with which type of interoperability principles. Comparing different types of services using a homogenous set of questions is difficult because of the unique characteristics among the services. In the future, this may be solved by conducting analyses in the context of each service type and/or user base. Such comprehensive evaluations for further development would require high degrees of coordination.
The goal was to focus on recommendations to improve service interoperability across services providers, considering the diversity of providers and services themselves. Overall, recommendations were selected based on a common understanding of the recommendations’ relation to service-related concepts (e.g., service management, service architecture and design, service operations, accessibility, and processing of research data).

Please have a closer look at our methodology, analysis, and conclusions.