[egov] Re: [skewed] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice andHelp wi th E-Forms for E-Gov

[Todd Harbour <toddh@fgm.com>]

Jouko,

I feel that I need to chime in again with a point. I see much traffic on
this list that is IMHO using a considerable amount of "overloaded"
terminology. Namely things like "services," "activities," "ontologies," and
various other trendy marketing terms like B2G, G2B, etc. While I agree that
we need an ontology to define the the eGov vocabulary, I feel that it should
represent the needs of the governmental space and not be overly skewed
towards activities, the parties involved, services, or other overloaded
terminology. 

Instead, I believe that our work should primarily focus on identifying the
vocabulary that is exclusively within the governmental domain. All else is
something that other experts are most likely working on. If we focus on the
"atomic" level, we can define the building blocks that will enable other TCs
and domains to effectively communicate with governments.

On 1/10/03 8:38 AM, "Jouko Salonen" <jouko.salonen@republica.fi> wrote:

> John et al
> 
> 
> I hope we can clarify the charters of the subcommittees as soon as possible!
> 
> Services subcommittee is the right place to work with the government forms
> material, if the focus is on harmonising the in government-use relevant
> XML-vocabularies and if the Services subcommittee's task-list would after this
> be manageable ( I am sceptical here).  In a way, yes, Government Services
> (whether G2C, G2B or G2G) are the natural "ontological frame" for the forms.
> Furthermore, if I understood Diane and John right in Baltimore, the Services
> subcommittee will start with a kind of "taxonomy of government activities"
> approach which would, thus, offer a natural umbrella for forms used in those
> services.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Probert, Sue [mailto:Sue.Probert@commerceone.com]
> Sent: 9. tammikuuta 2003 15:33
> To: John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk; 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: RE: [egov] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice and Help wi th
> E-Forms for E-Gov
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


=========================================
Todd Harbour                            571-276-2196 (Cell)
45245 Business Court              703-478-9881 (Talk)
Dulles, Virginia 20166              703-478-9883 (Fax)