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

[Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

Which brings us neatly back to the charter ...

The charter says nothing about defining forms or even defining common
semantics for use across governments. Its four bullets come down to two main
things, both aimed at helping e-gov in general:

1. Promote the needs of government in other initiatives

2. Define best practice based on experience

I think there is some benefit in defining common ontologies, but, like
David's, my experience indicates that this will only work in restricted
areas. We are having a fair stab at this with the Election Markup Language,
but this has involved inventing new terms to try to avoid redefining others
in common use. It might work in these restricted cases, but a general
"international government ontology" has little hope of success. It is the
sort of job to give a group if you don't want them to succeed.

Even if we had one, what would we do about use of other (commercial)
vocabularies? For example, the UK Revenue accepts company accounts in XBRL.
This is totally unlike anything else in UK government, both in structure and
vocabulary. What is the best practice for integrating these private sector
initiatives into government? Isn't that where we can provide the most
benefit?

Of course, there are areas where there is a common international
requirement. For example, how should the ISO country code (or currency code
or ...) list be represented in XML so that it can be used for validation and
dereferencing? I have seen the UBL position paper, which excludes
dereferencing, and have written a proposal for UK government. I would love
to see an international agreement so a single set of lists can be
maintained. Although this is also relevant in the private sector, this might
be the best group to achieve it.

If people feel they can do more, that is great. But I will be happy if we
can define some best practice, work on common areas and influence other
initiatives to take the needs of international government into account. At
least that is something we can deliver, and start to deliver quickly.

Just my 2 cents/pence (as an individual member rather than a representative
of anyone else).

Regards

Paul Spencer
Senior Partner
Boynings Consulting
http://www.boynings.co.uk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent: 11 January 2003 04:21
> To: Todd Harbour
> Cc: Diane Lewis; John Borras; Sue Probert; Jouko Salonen;
> roy.morgan@nist.gov; Kevin Williams; Glenda Hayes;
> egov@lists.oasis-open.org; Brand Niemann; Owen_Ambur@fws.gov
> Subject: [egov] Re: [skewed] RE: Starting Discussion to Get Your Advice
> and Help wi th E-Forms for E-Gov
>
>
> 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.
> <
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>