[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [egov] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help withE-Forms for E-Gov
thanks will do diane -----Original Message----- From: John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:27 AM To: Lewis, Diane Cc: Owen_Ambur@fws.gov; 'Brand Niemann'; egov@lists.oasis-open.org; ghayes@mitre.org; Kevin Williams; roy.morgan@nist.gov Subject: [egov] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov Diane This may be something that is best handled by the Services SC. Can you have a think about it please. It perhaps adds weight to the thought I've posed to you about the need to sub-divide Services into C2G , B2G and G2G to spread the load. That would break down the number of forms that needed to be looked at by each group. John Owen_Ambur@fws.gov 06/01/2003 14:54 To: John.Borras@e-envoy.gsi.gov.uk cc: "'Brand Niemann'" <bniemann@cox.net>, Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov, egov@lists.oasis-open.org, "Kevin Williams" <kevin@blueoxide.com>, roy.morgan@nist.gov, ghayes@mitre.org Subject: RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov Yes, John, it appears we are in agreement on the best place to start and I am glad to hear that OASIS plans to provide better means to support the collaborative process to identify and resolve needless inconsistencies and redundancies among XML data elements and schemas. However, the point I am trying to make is that regardless of which forms are chosen for the *initial* focus, the fastest and best way to identify needless inconsistencies and redundancies is to register as rapidly as possible *all* of the elements on *all* of the forms in *current usage*. (If US government forms include elements that UK forms do not, and vice versa, perhaps that means the activities are not "inherently governmental" in nature. Or, stated more positively, elements that are found commonly to occur on government forms in most, if not all nations will circumscribe the state of consensus on functions that are *properly* governmental. Conversely, elements that are *unique* to forms used by various governments may call into question the international acceptability of the function being supported by the data.) It would be preferable to specify the elements and schemas in a registry that: a) is ISO 11179 compliant; b) supports subscription (passive as well as active) as well as registration (so that communities of interest can identify themselves); c) incorporates automated means (e.g., XML Query, XTM, multilingual thesaurus, etc.) to assist in identifying needless inconsistencies and redundancies; and d) supports better, more targeted means than E-mail and F2F meetings for higher-quality/value collaboration. In my view, overreliance on the top-down approach to IT and data architecture is needlessly *delaying* progress as well as elevating the risk of failure, and overreliance on E-mail and F2F meetings is *distracting attention* from the need for and potential to develop, implement, and use better means of facilitating collaboration. Success and failure are relative terms, and I hope to be proven wrong with respect to the productivity of ongoing efforts. However, one thing is certain: We can always do better ... and it is in that spirit that I offer these comments, for whatever they may be worth. Owen John.Borras@e-Envoy .gsi.gov.uk To: Owen_Ambur@fws.gov, roy.morgan@nist.gov, "'Brand Niemann'" <bniemann@cox.net>, "Kevin Williams" 01/06/03 03:58 AM <kevin@blueoxide.com> cc: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov, roy.morgan@nist.gov, egov@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov First - let me apologise to all. Quite rightly it's been pointed out to me that we should copy the e-gov lists in on these e-mails so all members of the TC can contribute. All to note for the future please. Owen You seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying about the forms being USA specific.. The point I was making was the list that was being referred to in the previous e-mails was in fact a list of USA forms that on a cursory glance didn't seem to have too much international application. What I was trying to say was that we should concentrate on a form or forms that had some international applicability, and clearly passports and visas fall into that category. So we are clearly on the same wave-length on this point. I would propose that we ask Diane to put this as a high priority for the work on the Services sub-committee, and depending on the availability of resources, she could do one or perhaps more than one form. So as a starter can you and others who have an interest in this put your hands up to become members of that SC please. I'm with you on the major role of the TC. If we do no more than coordinate efforts then we will achieve quite a lot, but it would be nice to do more than that if we can. With regard to a better way of collaborating, we heard from Karl in Baltimore about a new support system for OASIS TCs that should come into play in March. If I understood it right that should provide the sort of facilities that you mention and will provide for closed consultation within the TC and also open consultation for the wider world. We can review this at our next TC meeting in March. John "Kevin Williams" <kevin@blueoxide.com> To: <Owen_Ambur@fws.gov>, "'Brand Niemann'" <bniemann@cox.net>, <John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk> 03/01/2003 03:28 cc: <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>, <roy.morgan@nist.gov> Subject: RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov All: While I agree with John that XForms is still a bit of a technology-in-flux (and it may take some time for a single standard to emerge as the XML acquisition technology of choice), I also agree with Owen that there is some low-hanging fruit to be had in the forms area. The great thing about XML, naturally, is that it allows us to tackle these problems separately; that is, we can work together to define and agree upon the information that needs to be gathered as part of the business processes (passport applications, import/export documentation, etc.) without necessarily focusing too closely on the presentation side of the equation just yet. In my mind, the presentation layer is further subdivided into two tasks: the data acquisition process (which may be best served by a technology that has not yet matured, such as XForms), and data presentation (which is served well by mature technologies such as XSLT). I'm all for making the user experience consistent across all government systems (both here in the US and across international borders), but my feeling is that a common vocabulary focus should definitely be the first step towards making this happen. If this vocabulary is well-planned and as complete as possible, it can be leveraged beyond the bounds of the specific tasks to be reused across larger efforts later. It also makes sense to me that we need some effective mechanism for collaboration - as some of you know, I (and my company) have definite opinions in that regard. I will add, however, that in my experience working on the MISMO data standard early in its lifecycle, I discovered that using collaboration software (that I had to build by hand) to break out of the "let's all meet once a quarter, let's email DTDs back and forth" mode of XML structure development enabled us to finally make progress and succeed where previous efforts had not. - Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Owen_Ambur@fws.gov [mailto:Owen_Ambur@fws.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:49 PM To: Brand Niemann; John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk Cc: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov; roy.morgan@nist.gov; kevin@blueoxide.com Subject: Re: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov Brand & John, FYI -- with further reference to my message below, GAO's eGov report criticizes OMB for failure to follow through on the avowed intent to make eGov applications customer focused. GAO recommends that OMB should: a) solicit input from the public, and b) develop and document effective collaboration strategies: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03229.pdf As I said at the OASIS e-Gov TC meeting in Baltimore, it seems to me that facilitating collaboration is the essence of the TC's task. Moreover, it seems to me that the specific focus of collaboration should be the elements (schemas) comprising the forms that citizens are expected to complete in order to interact with and obtain services from government. Otherwise the effort is anything *but* citizen centered. Of course, too, there must be better means than F2F meetings and/or E-mail to gather input from the public and to facilitate collaboration among TC members. Such means must include a registry of some sort, a Web interface, and features to facilitate public input. They should also include more specialized means for resolving needless inconsistencies and redundancies among data elements as well as differences of opinion among TC members. Owen Owen Ambur To: John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk 01/02/03 11:21 AM cc: "Brand Niemann" <bniemann@cox.net>, Daniel.Vogelheim@sun.com, jeanpa@Microsoft.com, jon.bosak@sun.com, marion.royal@gsa.gov, mdubinko@cardiff.com, Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov, GREEVESR@OJP.USDOJ.GOV, Leonard.Starling@usdoj.gov, saboe@ndf.org, ghayes@mitre.org, jdodd@csc.com, CAROLINE.DAVIS.ROBERTS@saic.com Subject: Re: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov(Document link: Owen Ambur) John, with reference to your proposal, personally, I'd be pleased if we could start with as few as *one* form that is in *actual usage* and proceed from there as time and resources allow. However, I must take issue with your contention that focusing on the forms that are used to conduct governmental business would be USA-specific and would require redundant efforts for every nation. To the contrary, the intent would be to *reduce* the need for redundant efforts not only across national boundaries but also within them -- by specifying the data elements that are common to governmental functions worldwide and doing so in a manner that focused on actual practice (existing forms) rather than the king's notion of how the people's business "might" or "should" be conducted in a perfect world. With respect to where to start, it seems to me that passport and visa forms, and the documentation supporting them, might be good candidates. Other likely candidates include import/export forms. And, since everyone is *talking* about "citizen centered" services, it seems to me that we ought to put our money where our mouths are and *specify* in data elements and schemas what we mean when we use that term. (Many of the person metadata elements required to specify citizen centric services would also be common to homeland security applications.) However, the bottom line is that the effort should be focused and defined by the people (communities of interest/practice) and resources volunteered and/or otherwise brought to bear in pursuit of the vision and strategic objectives of the TC. BTW, with respect to vision, it seems to me that the concept of "freedom of information" fairly well captures it and that, ultimately, we should be aiming to establish an international standard for freedom of information. Owen Ambur, Co-Chair XML Working Group USCIOC http://xml.gov/ John.Borras@e-Envoy .gsi.gov.uk To: "Brand Niemann" <bniemann@cox.net> cc: Daniel.Vogelheim@sun.com, jeanpa@Microsoft.com, 01/02/03 07:07 AM jon.bosak@sun.com, marion.royal@gsa.gov, mdubinko@cardiff.com, Owen_Ambur@fws.gov Subject: Re: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov Brand Our strategy here in the UK is to use XForms in the future but only when the market adequately supports that standard. So as far as the e-Gov TC is concerned I would expect us to say something along those lines as part of our Best Practice guidance. Producing actual implementations of any particular form is another question, and I would only see us doing that if the form in question had some international use. The list of forms you refer to appear to be totally USA specific and therefore I would not see it as the role of the TC to deliver the schemas for them. If we do that for USA then we would be obliged to do it for every country! So maybe the best way forward is to select a small number of forms that have some international usage and the TC promotes a pilot to deliver the schemas for them as an exemplar. This would be a good example of my wish to deliver small packages of work quickly from the TC. How does that proposal grab folks? John "Brand Niemann" <bniemann@cox.net> To: <jeanpa@Microsoft.com>, <jon.bosak@sun.com>, <John.Borras@e-envoy.gsi.gov.uk>, 27/12/2002 13:31 <mdubinko@cardiff.com>, <Daniel.Vogelheim@sun.com> cc: <Owen_Ambur@fws.gov>, <marion.royal@gsa.gov> Subject: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help with E-Forms for E-Gov I have been asked by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide information and advice on E-Forms Applications for E-Government. Our main compilation of forms is found at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/offerings_content.jsp?contentOID=11636 9&contentType=1004&P=1&S=1 where the initial emphasis has been on the new Section 508 accessibility requirements. Owen Ambur has long suggested we start with say the "top 100 standard and optional forms" to implement an XML-standards based approach and I certainly concur. Of course this will not be successful unless we have the involvement and support of the major players in the software applications and standards efforts like yourselves. Would you be willing to support the development and implementation of such an approach? What would it take to get say the "top 100 standard and optional forms" to appear as templates/schemas in the XDocs, OpenOffice, XForms-compliant products, etc.? Could/should we use the UBL in this effort? Could/should this be a formal pilot project under the new OASIS E-Government TC? We are planning the agendas for the February XML (19th) and XML Web Services (18th) Working Group Meetings around this topic and would invite your input and participation (see http://xml.gov and http://web-services.gov). Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Brand Niemann Chair, CIO Council XML Web Services Working Group Member, OMB Solution Architects Working Group PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. GSI users see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm for further details. In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC