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

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Jouko,

I've just joined the group - so I'd not read Sue's note.

I was coming at this from a different tack.  Obviously with Sue's work
in UBL and CC the semantic alignment needs are one item.

However - as co-chair of the OASIS ebXML awareness TC - we've
been working hard on showing how the technologies can provide
a consistent an interoperable platform.

That is also an obvious vital need for eGov.  Take for instance
BPM - where we have at least five different offerings.  And then
messaging, registry, partner discovery - all these things are
overlapping and not necessarily aligned right now.

Fortunately there are steps in progress, and people are 
talking to improve things.

I'd seen this more of a need to track work on ebXML/Web services,
to coordinate with other groups.  Even just asking the simple
question: "Tell us how ebXML/Web services work for eGov from
your perspective?" - is helpful here IMHO.

There is no instant fix obviously.  The longterm approach is one
of encouraging people to adopt and align.  The OASIS forum 
and family is a great way to do that.

The role of the sub-committee may be as simple as collecting
whitepapers and presentations on ebXML/web services for eGov
from the respective technical committees out there.

Then another item could be coordinating joint pathfinder items,
if some specific deliverable can be identified that makes 
sense.  This could be say an effort thru the NIST/OAG testbed,
or it could be a paper report to the EU or USGov for example.
Related to this is collecting functional requirements to help
guide development of ebXML/Web services - specifically
to solve eGov needs.

Thanks, DW.
=========================================================

Message text written by Jouko Salonen
>But, what would be the ebXML/web-services subcommittee charter if the
XML-vocabulary work will be done within the Services subcommittee? 
I think that no one of us who attended in the Baltimore meeting never
thought that the e-Gov XML TC web-Services / ebXML subcommittee really has
any other function than to ensure that the information elements and
collaboration/service-process types that are important for building
standard government e-services would be somehow included into the work of
ebXML Core Component and CPP(A) efforts. We need ebXMLCore Components,
-business processes and -contexts that are relevant from the government
point of view. The current (1.04 version) Core Component Dictionary, for
example, does not give any real starting point here.
 
I furthermore believe, that many of us who are working with the government
XML element naming projects right now, agree with Owen that the
harmonisation MUST happen according to the lines defined in ISO11179-,
UN/CEFACT CoreComponents, and UBL-kind of XML BIEs.
 
Therefore we could think that at least one of the ebXML/web-services
subcomittee's task must be to follow Sue Probert's invitation:
<Sue>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.</Sue>
 
 
best regards
Jouko
<