RE: [egov] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help wi thE-Forms for E-Gov

["Probert, Sue" <Sue.Probert@commerceone.com>]

John et al

 

I think that it is very important to clarify a) what new work is really needed, b) what harmonisation is required with other initiatives and c) what existing work can be harvested to assist us to reach our goals.

 

I also think we should be careful to make a clear distinction between the requirements we have for a) semantic content harmonisation, b) techniques and technologies and c) methodologies.

 

In order to reach this clarity it is my opinion that it is essential to quickly obtain a snapshot picture of relevant, preferably international, existing and ongoing standards activies, their scopes and relationships.

 

For example UN/CEFACT is, I firmly believe, the correct environment to further semantic content harmonisation i.e. to build a cross industry & government library of ISO 11179 & ebXML Core Component TS compliant data element definitions whereas the OASIS environment is perfect for us to progress the equally crucial standardisation of the required XML related techniques and technologies. As far as methodologies are concerned then W3C, UN/CEFACT, ISO and OASIS are all committing valuable resources to creating methodologies which, probably through my ignorance, I am very much afraid could be sometimes seriously overlapping each other.

 

UN/CEFACT is also committed to supporting the development of cross syntax implementations based on syntax neutral business process models developed to define both business and governmental process requirements and on its ebXML core component semantic framework. UN/CEFACT projects are ongoing to provide UN/EDIFACT, XML & UN Layout paper eforms syntax implementations.

 

As a member of the management team of the UN/CEFACT International Trade & Business Processes Group and a member of the UN/CEFACT Forum Coordination Team I would like to invite the egov TC to join us in an urgent discussion with the aim of developing a joint plan to ensure a rapid yet complete and internationally harmonised approach to the semantics definition work in particular. The next meeting of the UN/CEFACT Forum which is a twice yearly event for the UN/CEFACT Groups to meet together is being held in San Diego through the week commencing March 10th 2003. As this is the same week that our next TC meeting is planned in Washington DC perhaps it may be possible to follow that with a TC delegation visiting the Forum to meet with the many UN/CEFACT working groups and projects which are directly relevant to the the work of this egov TC?

 

The experienced resources that we need to most efficiently and quickly progress to our stated goals in all these areas are very limited anywhere in the world and it just does not make sense to me for us to keep the brakes on each of our organisations' possible successes by allowing a lack of communications or any sense of competitiveness to result in duplicative or, even more destructively, diverging standards developments.

 

I would be interested in contributing to any sub-committee or project of the TC which would look at building this proposed matrix of related standards and standards activities.

 

regards

 

Sue

 

Sue Probert 
Vice-Chair of the UN/CEFACT International Trade & Business Processes Group (TBG)

Senior Director, Document Standards, Commerce One
Mobile: +44 7798 846652
Tel: +44 1425 275117 or +44 1753 483000
email: sue.probert@commerceone.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 09 January 2003 12:26
To: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov
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.