Do you need a DLT interoperability solution?

Entrepreneurs, enterprises, and governments are using distributed ledger technology (DLT) as a component of complex information systems, and therefore interoperability capabilities are required. Interoperating DLTs enables network effects, synergies and, similarly to the rise of the Internet, it unlocks the full potential of the technology. However, due to the novelty of the area, interoperability mechanisms (IM) are still not well understood, as interoperability is studied in silos. Consequently, choosing the proper IM for a use case is challenging.

Our recent paper attempts to address the existing challenges, by:

1. we systematically study the research area of DLT interoperability by dissecting and analyzing previous work. We study the logical separation of interoperability layers, how a DLT can connect to others (connection mode), the object of interoperation (interoperation mode), and propose a new categorization for IMs.
2. we propose the first interoperability assessment for DLTs that systematically evaluates the interoperability degree of an IM. This framework allows comparing the potentiality, compatibility, and performance among solutions.
3. we propose two decision models to assist in choosing an IM, considering different requirements. The first decision model assists in choosing the infrastructure of an IM, while the second decision model assists in choosing its functionality.

In this article, we explore contribution number 3, the decision models, namely the Functionality Decision Model. However, we assume that you have the basis of DLT interoperability concepts, which can be found in Section 3 of the paper (pages 11 to 22).

The following diagram assists you in choosing the infrastructure for an Interoperability Mechanism. Start on the start node, then navigate throughout the diagram. You will accumulate some recommendations.

For example:

In this example, the decision model advised us to choose an IM supporting Asset Transfers from solution group G2 (supporting level P4). We now check the solutions table:

We look onto the G2 row, where we have a tick on Asset transfer. Thus, if we need to choose the functionality alone for our use case, we can pick solutions [11,17, 32, 33, etc…] and [93,109,117, etc…]. The references are present on the paper.

In the next posts, we will explore how to choose the infrastructure of an IM, as well as contributions 1 and 2 of the paper.

The paper can be found here: https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/Do_You_Need_a_Distributed_Ledger_Technology_Interoperability_Solution_/18786527 or here https://rafaelapb.github.io//academic

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank our colleagues in the IETF’s forming working group ODAP for fruitful discussions. We thank the Hyperledger Cactus community and Iulia Mihaiu for insightful discussions on blockchain interoperability. This work was partially supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with reference UIDB/50021/2020 (INESC-ID), and 2020.06837.BD. Rafael was supported by Quant.