[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: PEPPOL's support for SMEs
Dear
Kenneth, Good to
hear the e-CODEX presentation was useful, I felt somewhat insecure about what is interesting to this group
and what isn't. What I'd like to do at some later point in time, maybe in a few
weeks, is elaborate a bit more on the particulars of our discovery requirements.
Also if
ever it fits, I would find it interesting to discuss the differences between
uses cases that involve some human processing vs. direct EDI application
integration. The
4-corner-drawing I've not only seen but also quoted in our own e-Delivery
document ;) Thank you
for your clarification on SME support - if that's basically about not
assuming any specific capabilities on the 1st and 4th corner, that would in
e-CODEX again map to subsidiarity - existing national systems remain untouched,
whatever they may be (and whatever their technical maturity).
However,
there seems to be some small difference: where in PEPPOL SMEs can rely on a
(commercial) service provider, e-CODEX gateways will be run by governments
(ministries of justice), and so they will for their own country define minimum
requirements to connect to that gateway. In some
countries as far as I know the national "Registered Email" solutions are in
fact commercial, but these service providers don't run their own e-CODEX
gateways, but will be connected to the one of their
country. Somewhat
confusingly, what we call "service providers" are the technical systems
connected to the gateways, so these sit rather on the 1st and 4th corner.
The
agreements between the entities running the gateways (that correspond to the
PEPPOL agreements) are the basis of what we call the "Circle of Trust" (the
legal details of which are still in the making). Similar
to PEPPOL, we also standardize only what's between the 2nd and 3rd corner; how
end entities communicate with the gateways is up to the Member States. (We do
have defined a backend interface for the "default" implementation we provide for
our partners, however in principle countries can change / replace that
backend interface or use an altogether different implementation, as long as it
communicates with the other e-CODEX gateways via the standardized (ebMS)
protocol.) In fact,
we can probably learn a lot from PEPPOL in terms of interoperability agreements.
What corresponds to PEPPOL's service providers, catering
for different needs of different user groups, are for e-CODEX the ministries,
catering for the needs of their judicial IT infrastructures. We're not
so much concerned about demand and supply - it's governments that decide they
have a demand for cross-border e-Justice, and who then decide to run an e-CODEX
gateway (and by joining the project as a piloting country, they have already
implicitly made that decision). So in sum
you are right that this requirement maps not so much to ours of avoiding
proprietary infrastructures, but to the one already mentioned, that (where you
have no requirements for SMEs) we have no requirements for the national systems
(e.g. case management systems) nor to how they are connected to the e-CODEX
gateways (e.g. .some secure national transport infrastructure, or, in the
extreme case, gmail). Thank you
for pointing this out. Regarding your last remark, that you "see that a similar structure can support your use case for connecting judicial authorities" let me just mention that we view the citizens’ communication via the European e-Justice portal just as a special case of this - in fact the e-Justice portal wants to connect to the e-CODEX infrastructure through e-Trustex, very much like e-Trustex is connected to PEPPOL.
Best regards
Susanne
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]