1. Introduction
Since the rise of Industry 4.0, companies have perceived and exploited the benefits of sharing
data in the industrial environment [
1
]. Sharing data may lead to value creation in a holistic
approach, however, sharing sensitive data relies on a systematic and secure approach, to avoid
losing control over data, and competitive advantage. Based on those assumptions, the Fraunhofer
Institute has developed the Industrial Data Spaces initiative [
2
], which provides a framework
for sharing sensitive data in a secure data space, that relies on trust and data sovereignty.
Data sovereignty stands for the capability of a data owner to maintain control over their data,
determine who can access it, for what duration, and for what specific purposes it may be used.
One year later, in 2015, the Industrial Data Spaces initiative was enhanced into the International
Data Spaces (IDS) initiative. Grounded by the same pillars, the IDS initiative difers from its
precursor, because of its capability to exchange data internationally.
The International Data Spaces Association (IDSA) manages the IDS initiative by providing
architecture models, policies, and maintenance capability. The IDSA has developed the
Reference Architecture Model (RAM) [
3
], which describes the IDS architecture and instantiates
patterns for development and deployment. The RAM leans on the European Interoperability
Framework (EIF) regarding its interoperability capabilities [
4
], which divides the concept of
interoperability into four layers, i.e., legal, organizational, semantic, and technical,
hierarchically. Even though recently, in 2024, the EIF has been updated, and now counts with the four
layers of interoperability, a cross-cutting layer (integrated public service governance), and a
background layer (interoperability governance), the RAM only reflects the four fundamental
layers, hence, we have defined our scope towards those layers. Legal Interoperability is defined
as the capability of companies under diferent legislations to exchange data. To provide a licit
service contract of IDS, there must be compliance between the data provider and the data
consumer. This compliance is achieved by the commitment to the data usage policy - a set
of usage policies defined by the data owner regarding its data. The data usage policy may be
negotiated in the contract negotiation phase, but only the data owner has the power to update
it.
The IDSA also provides the Information Model [
5
], an OWL ontology that defines the domain
of IDS. This ontology was developed to provide a framework for further development, providing
an incipient description of IDS, and proposing its branches expansion. This present work was
fostered by such an assumption to provide a better description of the legal domains of IDS.
Although the legal interoperability layer carries the role of a fundamental one, it is seldom
undervalued by researchers and enthusiasts. We performed a Systematic Literature Review
(SLR) to validate and retrieve knowledge regarding such an assumption. To represent the
legal interoperability domain in IDS, we propose the development of an ontology called Legal
Interoperability Ontology for International Data Spaces - LegIOn-IDS, which is available in the
supplementary material1. Moreover, we propose the reuse of the Service Contract Ontology
[
6
], which provides a framework for contractual relationships, and its description in a
machinereadable way, given the high-level concepts of legal entitlements and legal lacks.
With this work, we propose a protocol for legal interoperability in IDS, by ofering an
ontological representation of the legal aspects domain regarding the IDS infrastructure, a
clear concept of legal interoperability in IDS, and finally, providing an unambiguous
machinereadable language that can feasibly describe a service contract in IDS, leading to human resources
and financial savings. Furthermore, we advocate implementing Natural Language Processing
machine learning models, which based on the instantiation of the ontology (with contractual
clauses), can provide a service contract based on the IDS architecture. Figure 1 provides a
bottom-up application for our framework.
2. Methodology
For developing such research, we propose the usage of Design Science Research (DSR). DSR is
stated as a practical research development methodology that is based on a problem set, and relies
on several methods, Research Questions (RQ), and goals to provide a concise set of solutions
1https://github.com/VictorBenoiston/legal_interoperability_IDS_ontology
(treatment) [
7
]. The research questions of this present work are presented as follows: General
Research Question: How to Achieve Legal Interoperability in IDS? General Conceptual
Question: What is legal interoperability in Dataspaces? General Technical Question: How
to efectively enforce Legal Interoperability in IDS? General Practical Question: How does
Proper Legal Interoperability afect IDS-based ecosystems?
Furthermore, we may summarize our goals as Knowledge goal: Provide a conceptual
foundation for legal interoperability in IDS-based data ecosystems, identify gaps, challenges,
and opportunities. Artifact Goal: Develop a legal interoperability protocol that encompasses
the IDS architecture, especially the contractual phases (ofer, request, and negotiation), and data
exchange between countries under diferent legislations. The artifact must provide a natural
language contract for easier negotiation of clauses, and screening of interoperability barriers [
4
].
Finally, the Instrument Design: Develop a FAIR ontology [
8
], which works as a foundation for
further applications. The ontology ought to unambiguously represent the legal interoperability
domain in IDS.
To answer those RQs, and guided by the knowledge, artifact design, and instrument design
goals, we performed an SLR, grounded by the guidelines proposed by [
9
]. Furthermore, an
ontology for describing legal interoperability within IDS is being developed, fostered by the
SABiO [
10
] and SABiOx [
11
] systematic methodologies for building ontologies. Finally, the
functional and non-functional requirements, the referential and operational versions of
LegIOnIDS, and documentation are available in the supplementary material.
3. Conclusion and Prior Results
As an ongoing work, the proposed ontology is incipient, lacking real-world validation, and real
user evaluation [
12
]. For that purpose, we propose the implementation of such ontology into
real-world use cases, such as the alignment with the recently launched Brazilian IDS hub, or
even providing a scenario of data sharing between diferent countries with local oil companies,
or Dutch logistics companies using digital twins. However, we can already retrieve knowledge
through SPARQL queries, answering its competency questions (functional requirements).
Finally, as future steps, we aim to implement machine learning NLP models able to classify the
contractual clauses and their further implementation in the service contract template, leveraging
easier validation for lawyers, enthusiasts, and IDS potential participants.
The present work was endorsed by CNPq - National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development - Brazil.