Re: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC

[Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com>]

Just to clarify - I am a *huge* fan of not re-inventing stuff.  In no 
way should we devise YARS (Yet another Registry Scheme).  OASIS already 
has one more than they probably need (no flames please on which one is 
better ;-)

The intent of my post was to convey my own experiences that a Best 
practices/implementation guide of existing registries would help eGov. 
 Same with Architecture.  If we do an architecture, it should possibly 
be on adapting an existing architecture such as ebXML or WSA to eGov.

What would also be nice is a requirements document. Perhaps some of the 
Gov folks can steer the next actions for this group based on what is 
needed.  I am also a huge fan of technology being driven by real world 
needs.  The last thing we all need to do is to develop new technology 
that will sit on a shelf becuase no one actually needs it.

Duane Nickull

Matthew Dovey wrote:

>There is a wealth of activity on metadata registries ranging from ISO 11179 Schema registries to technotes on how to use UDDI and ebXML in this context. I may be misinterpreting the remit of this SC and this TC (having only recently joined as an observer) but I would have thought that an overview of these technologies plus perhaps best practice/recommendations on implementing these technologies would be useful. However, the SC should not invent yet another new technology/approach where ones already exist (but I don't think that is the intent).
>
>Matthew Dovey
>Oxford University
>_____________Original message ____________
>Subject:	Re: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC
>Sender:	Robert Greeves <GREEVESR@OJP.USDOJ.GOV>
>Date:		Fri,  4 Apr 2003 03:49:10 +0100
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are issues that are very important to what we are currently 
> pursuing in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. 
> However, my concern is whether they (a) belong in the Infrastructure 
> Working Group and/or (b) whether they even belong in this TC? Aren't 
> there other TC's focusing on this type of capability?
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> >>> Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com> 04/02/03 01:02PM >>>
> I would propose one deliverable be an implementation/best practices
> guide for Governments to implement a metadata Registry for publishing
> and subsequent discovery of key metadata.  My past experience with
> government registries has been very enlightening and I can see a clear
> value in delivering such a proposal.  I woudl also argue that this may
> be a good first deliverable due to the amount of current interest in
> establishing a Registry centric concept of operations for many 
> governments.
>
> I can flesh this idea out further if there is interest.  Can we solicit
> comments from the governments participating on this list?  Please give
> this idea a sanity check ;-)
>
> If it goes ahead,  I would volunteer to get this started.
>
> The other candidate may be an architecture for using Registries within
> eGovernment to help guide implementations.  As opposed to a technical
> architecture,  this could be a reference architecture.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
> Eliot Christian wrote:
>
> > The following statement of Scope and Purpose for the proposed
> > Infrastructure Subcommittee incorporates suggestions of several
> > participants in the OASIS E-Government Technical Committee:
> > Owen Ambur, John Borras, Diane Lewis, Jim Rice, and Sinisa Zimek.
> > I hope that I have captured the intent of the suggestions, while
> > exercising some editorial license to maintain readability. Please
> > do let me know if you object to adoption of this statement.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Scope and Purpose: Within the scope of the E-Government Technical
> > Committee, the Infrastructure Subcommittee focuses on common
> > facilities applied in multiple government functions. Examples
> > of common facilities include Security and Authentication,
> > Privacy Assurance, Geospatial Facilities, Metadata Facilities,
> > E-forms Facilities, Identity Services, Interface Management,
> > Information Discovery, Records Management, Taxonomy Management,
> > Registry and Repository Facilities, and Organization Directories,
> > among others. Common facilities addressed by the Infrastructure
> > Subcommittee are component technology solutions used by the
> > various government functions delineated by the Services
> > Subcommittee and the various E-Government projects highlighted
> > by the Best Practices Subcommittee. Common facilities addressed
> > by the Infrastructure Subcommittee also make use of the technical
> > mechanisms addressed by the Interoperable Services Subcommittee,
> > which are independent of particular government functions or
> > common facilities.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Assuming that we are now close to consensus on the Scope
> > and Purpose statement of the Infrastructure Subcommittee,
> > please circulate any suggestions on specific Deliverables.
> > Each Deliverable should be described with a short paragraph
> > accompanied by an estimate of the expected level of effort
> > and time to completion.
>
>
> --
> ***************************************************
> Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
> Professional Software Development & Metadata Management
> Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Professional Software Development & Metadata Management
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture