RE: [egov-discuss] Initial thoughts on OASIS eGovernment work in the proposed new Member Section

["Carol Cosgrove-Sacks" <carol.cosgrove-sacks@oasis-open.org>]

Hi Peter and John,

This is a good start to our eGov discussions.

I hope we will be able to combine an ambitious approach with realism.All
four themes are important. I expect we will get some more feedback before
we need to make decisions about priorities.

John, it is super to have the benefit of your experience.

Wishing all a good weekend,

Carol

> We might need to split the discussion out on the four separate items at
> some stage but for now, some additional remarks, mainly to
> clarify...also inline
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 20 July 2007 10:12
> To: Peter F Brown; egov-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [egov-discuss] Initial thoughts on OASIS eGovernment work
> in the proposed new Member Section
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Some initial thoughts in-line below.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu> wrote:
>
> 	Dear all:
>
> 	Below are a few ideas for possible work that could be the focus
> for the proposed new eGov Member Section. These reflect several trains
> of thought based upon my own previous involvement in the eGov TC
> (including most recently the informal meeting held in San Diego at the
> OASIS AGM); on my work as Chairman of the "eGovernment Focus Group" of
> the European Standards Agency, CEN/ISSS; on work done by and in my own
> company, Pensive. As you will probably know also, I have recently been
> elected to the OASIS Board and would want to follow the work of this
> Member Section as part of my Board responsibilities.
>
>
>
> 	So here goes:
>
>
>
> 	1. "eGovernment Upper Ontology" or "Reference Model" and eGov
> artefact identifiers
>
> 	Several agencies have referred to the need for and have built
> models and ontologies for eGovernment. the question in San Diego was
> whether there was a role for OASIS in leveraging this work. A
> combination of the work of Dublin Core, high-level reference models and
> ontologies could provide a common method for identifying, "labelling"
> and describing eGovernment data, services and service components. Unique
> identity for such eGovernment artefacts is also growing in importance:
> think of it as the "EAN/UPC numbering system for eGovernment".
>
>
>
> 	>>How about starting by reviewing the MIREG standard we
> developed for the EU?  Probably needs more work but it has the basics
> from which to start.
>
> 	Also Maewyn and I struggled with this for years in the OeE and
> it ground to a halt.  I think she produced a final report on the issues
> but it might be worth a catch up with her?
>
>
>
> 	PFB> Yes, MIReG is a start, particularly as it developed the
> world's first ever ebXMLrr prototype - and then disappeared: I have all
> the original project files, as they seemed to vanish from the European
> Commission's records ;-)
>
>
>
> 	2. Personal identification and data management
>
> 	Several TCs, as well as groups in other Consortia (such as W3C
> and elsewhere) have struggled with the multiplicity of XML schema
> elements and other data constructs used to represent natural and legal
> persons and the consequent problems of interoperability between then. A
> recent call to find an interchange format based on vCard is an excellent
> example: whatever the context specific needs and representations, it is
> clear that public sector agencies play a central role in issuing and
> managing personal identifiers and could thus play an important role in
> developing some form of interchange protocols. A commonly agreed ebXML
> Core Component for personal (and organisation/company)identifier, for
> example?
>
>
>
> 	>> I think this would need a significant input from government
> business managers as idenitfiers vary significantly even across
> government.  Trying to standardise these and getting a new protocol
> adopted would be a huge challenge.  Perhaps the starting point should be
> getting a business case for adoption agreed before getting too deep into
> the protocol itself.
>
>
>
> 	PFB> To be clear, the objective is not to create new identifiers
> (goodness knows how difficult that has been) but rather to try to agree
> to common mapping mechanisms across some common data elements, hence the
> reference to an ebXML CC. There is immense business value in trying to
> do this, as Microsoft are seeing with their CardSpace initiative.
>
>
>
> 	3. Document interoperability and long-term archiving
>
> 	The recent Call for proposals from the European Commission
> points to a clear need here [1]: this could even be an opportunity for
> the member Section as an entity to be involved in a serious large-scale
> pilot project. I don't believe the proposed TC on doc standards
> interoperability can, or is scoped, to cover the wider issues of legal
> validity, long-term persistence, and public sector "imprimatur" on
> official documents (such as role of publicly issued DigSigs for document
> signing)
>
>
>
> 	>> I would refer everybody to the work being done by our
> National Archives on this issue.  Certainly not a topic to try and
> re-invent wheels.
>
>
>
> 	PFB> Agreed, it's an excellent start: PDF/A, OOXML/XPS and ODF
> are all concerned with this and it would be important to ensure that the
> respective key industry players are involved.
>
>
>
> 	4. eGovernment resources Sharing
>
> 	This has been a focus of my work in the CEN/ISSS eGov Focus
> Group and can be summed up as: if you want to develop a greater
> commitment to collaboration and willingness to share eGovernment
> resources between public administrations, you need to make it easier for
> public officials and project managers to find and share their stuff. We
> have worked on ideas and recommended standards for doing this, and want
> very much to build momentum across different agencies and consortia in
> developing a common standards-based model for resources sharing.
>
>
>
> 	>>Is this is not an extension of 1. above?  In which case MIREG
> is relevant.
>
>
>
> 	PFB> Not really an extension, more a leverage point: the point
> is to provide common access, discovery and sharing mechanisms, not just
> common identification for eGov resources: this is covered a little in
> our discussion paper available at http://www.pensive.eu/uid/0079
>
>
>
>