API Governance Architecture for Cross-Format Semantic Validation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing API development and validation processes lack a comprehensive framework to ensure consistent and reliable validation of APIs across different formats and rulesets, leading to potential inconsistencies and reliability issues in user interactions.

Innovation Solution

A governance enforcement architecture that supports semantic validation of APIs, utilizing a validation framework capable of validating rules against any compatible metadata representation, with a validation profile that includes severity levels and a simplified syntax for rule authoring, and a system that integrates a validation console, servers, and a network for managing and reporting validation results.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a comprehensive validation framework is implemented to ensure consistent API validation across different formats and rulesets, then validation reliability and consistency are improved, but system complexity and implementation difficulty increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The validation framework is segmented into distinct modular components including a validation engine, ruleset manager, metadata extractor, and reporting module. Each component handles specific validation tasks independently, allowing the system to maintain high reliability through specialized processing while reducing overall complexity through modular architecture. The rulesets are further segmented into reusable validation rules that can be independently configured and applied.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The validation framework implements a universal validation engine capable of processing multiple API formats (REST, SOAP, GraphQL) and various metadata representations through a single unified interface. The system uses a standardized validation model that can accommodate different rulesets and validation criteria, enabling consistent validation across diverse API types without requiring separate validation systems for each format, thus improving reliability while managing complexity through multi-functionality.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Measurement precision

If semantic validation with severity levels and simplified syntax is implemented, then validation precision and ease of operation are improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation precisionVSAvoidvalidation framework complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The validation framework implements local quality by assigning different severity levels (error, warning, info) to different validation rules and metadata elements. This allows critical validation aspects to be processed with higher precision while less critical aspects receive appropriate but reduced attention. The simplified syntax provides different levels of detail and strictness for different validation scenarios, enabling precise validation where needed while maintaining ease of operation for routine validations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes parameters by introducing severity levels as a configurable parameter that modifies the validation behavior and output. The simplified syntax introduces parameters such as validation depth, strictness level, and output format that allow the same validation engine to adapt its precision and complexity based on the specific validation needs, thereby achieving high validation precision without permanently increasing the base system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Loss of information

If a governance enforcement architecture with validation console and reporting system is implemented, then information completeness and reliability are improved, but loss of time and operational complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation information completenessVSAvoidvalidation processing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The governance enforcement architecture performs preliminary actions by conducting validation checks early in the API development and deployment lifecycle. The validation console automatically executes validation rules against API specifications and metadata before the API is deployed to production, ensuring that validation information is captured and reported in advance. This preliminary validation prevents the need for time-consuming re-validation later while maintaining complete validation information through automated reporting.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms through automated validation reporting that provides immediate results to developers and stakeholders. The reporting system delivers comprehensive validation information including passed and failed checks, severity levels, and actionable recommendations. This real-time feedback loop reduces the time needed for manual validation review while maintaining information completeness by automatically capturing and reporting all validation results without human intervention delays.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS20250315273A1API Governance Enforcement Architecture
Publication Date: 2025.10.09 SALESFORCE INC
  • US20250315273A1 patent drawing
  • US20250315273A1 patent drawing
  • US20250315273A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Disclosed herein are system, method, and computer program product embodiments for providing an architecture to support a semantic validation technique. The system includes a governance console that carries out data management functionalities to support the validation. Such functionalities include generating, storing and publishing validation profiles that are used by a validation service for validating an asset, a validation reporter that receives and stores validation reports and performs notification functions to notify relevant individuals of the validation results, as well as a profile runner and associations manager that directly support the validation service.