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

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

Todd,

I have to inject a reality check here.  Does anyone have any idea
how tough this is?

Example:  Canadian Government has been looking at this for
3 years now, and have spent $50M on consulting.  And the
US Gov is approximately 50 times more than that in diversity.
I think we need to set some realistic scope here.   

What I would say is attainable is to set some guidelines
on approach - for instance DFAS is working on a 
Business-Centric Methodology - to enable eGov teams
within their own domains to have a concrete roadmap
that they can use.

Another example - Addresses - the OASIS CIQ work has
been widely praised.  Within a typical USGov department
there are hundreds of address formats being used.  But
OASIS CIQ is not looking to become the "master" address
format for USGov.  Far from it.  Looking at postal addresses
worldwide (because the USGov has to be able to address
things from Kabul to Rekjavik to Terra de Fuego) - there are
currently 207 in-country postal systems, and each has about
5 different postal address formats (USPS have four other
formats - not just the familiar Street/City/ZIP).  So this makes
about 1,000+ postal address formats.  And so the list goes
on.  Lesson learned - we need to identify the stake holder
(i.e. USPS in this case for USA) and work with them on
positioning OASIS technologies to help them meet their
needs.

So while it may sound great to say "let's just sit down and
work out the list of "atoms" that the USGov should be using",
we have to look at what is practical and what does not.  Also
I'm reminded here of the past CALS and UDEF efforts to
be the master atomic dictionary system.

Anyway - there is a solution here that I'm seeing makes
sense.   Again - reiterating - we need a set of coherent
guidelines and tools - that departments can take - to
implement a cross enterprise, open architecture 
solution.  "Atoms" at that level can be understood 
and the approaches used.  

I'm not going to attempt in this email to
spell out that depth of detail.  I've been involved
over the past six months in many pieces of work that
add together in this area, and there are white papers
and presentations from the last couple of months
that teams have.  I can say that one such key piece is
collaborative semantic registries - as an example
of great work going on in OASIS that provides
a vital component.   I'd suggest our better effort
would be in understanding all this for people
and delivering a coherent architecture story.

Again, simple steps, set attainable scope, produce
clear means to achieve that, identify some small
sample areas (such as Address) where you can
show real results, set schedule, work a pathfinder with 
departments that are clearly the stakeholder
(such as USPS) - and then present these findings
for others to take forward.

My thoughts turn to soccer.  We can coach 
soccer, we can run coaching sessions for
coaches, we can print up coaching manuals,
but at the end of the day - the players have
to play the game and call the shots on their 
fields.

A good coach can enable players to 
discover and grow faster and better than
without coaching, but trying to laydown
moves for every team, everywhere to 
follow and work from is not the approach
that wins.

Or are we talking about the same 
"atomic" things here?!?

Thanks, DW.
===================================================
Message text written by Todd Harbour
>
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.
<