Re: [egov] EPR and e-Folders

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ann,

I think we are in violent agreement!

Tor's English is much better than my Norwegian - but in any case
I believe that we following the path that you note out - and
I'd offer the following bullet points as an overview:

1) current eGov practices vary wildly from country to country,
    state to state, district to district.

2) Fostering common adoption and re-use mechanisms
    would hugely faciltiate the build-out of proven and
    reliable solutions.  Not to mention interoperability
    across systems.

3) Providing formal mechanisms in eFolder and naturally
    XML - allows implementers to follow a blueprint for
    success.

4) By creating eFolder solutions - these can then be
    registered as templates and can be searchable
    and discovered by implementers for re-use.

5) By establishing best-practices around the eFolders
    we can inform about how eGovernment practices
    align with technology synergistically.

 6) KISS - definately seeing this as founded on
     proven well known workflow methods - and this
     is where Tor is an authority and author and
     co-author of several books.

Over the past six months the EPRforum work has
identified the foundation blocks to achieve a first
base PoC system - basically its three parts -
an enhanced XDS server with identity management
and content handling services (we're calling this XDS V2),
then eFolders to manage representations of workflow
and XML artifacts inside that XDS V2 environment, and
then third - the UI metaphor - a simple set of workflow
tools as identified in the original EPR work and pilot.

Hopefully in 2005 we are able to jump start at least
one such PoC using the open source components
set we have targetted to build this with.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ann Wrightson" <Ann.Wrightson@csw.co.uk>
To: <egov@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [egov] EPR and e-Folders



Tor (& David),

I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, but maybe we *don't* need a standard for
e-folders (well, not for ten years or so maybe)?

<rant>
Simple standards for practical interoperability (eg passing information
about road works from local highways dept to local fire service) provide
real support for real people doing real jobs in the public service, & I
think this TC should encourage and facilitate their development. Open
standards for common artefacts such as OpenOffice and UBL are also a Good
Thing, and we should support & influence from the Govt angle as appropriate.

But, however attractive the prospect, IMO widespread adoption of in-depth
business integration in public administration is well in the future, and has
as a prerequisite the widespread adoption and understanding of simple
interoperability as above. Also, it is much more important to get simple
interoperability widely understood and implemented on the ground, than to
invent universal methods for doing it in any context (that only a few
experts fully understand).

Overall, there is at this time IMO much much less need for new standards and
methodologies than there is will to create them. Conversely, there is much
more need for hard graft on the ground to get the really basic stuff
delivering benefits.
(I would make the same comment with respect to, for example, BCM, ebsoa,
further elaboration of the SQL family, etc etc.)

In brief:

"K.I.S.S." is the *only* strategy that has any chance of success.
It is not sexy. It is hard graft. It looks boring. It's the only way.
(In fact, it's not boring, and it can be just as good for generating
conference papers &c ;-)

</rant>

Happy New Year...

Ann W.

PS (If you really want some more... :)

A couple of practical considerations in keeping it simple:
1. Even ebXML core components are complexity-overkill and learning-curve
overkill for many of the most urgently needed standards, from what I see of
the public sector and corporate (non-IT company) efforts. This is because
standards are usually no use for real interoperability unless they have been
developed with good input from user-side practitioners, and there is no
chance that everyone will have the time to get to grips with complex
methods. If the subject-matter experts "tune out" or feel inferior, the
standard is unlikely to be good for its intended purpose.
Even namespace prefixes should be "considered harmful" for early adopters of
interoperability standards; however this is not usually a handicap, since
(very) simple XML with sensibly named tags is often quite sufficient. (See
HR-XML for some good practice in this regard, in encouraging conformance and
reuse in simple as well as sophisticated ways.)
More sophisticated structures are implied by wider-scale interoperability,
but there's a lot of simple stuff to get going on the ground first before
that's a real issue. (There are just a few areas where the wider
interoperability is already coming in, eg healthcare.)

2. Individuals and organizations providing standards-based solutions already
have a significant problem regarding the scale and complexity of the
skill-set and knowledge base that is required. At the same time, there
appear to be an increasing number of people working hard to dig this hole
deeper - and worse, believing that it's a good thing!


Principal Consultant
CSW Group Ltd
***********************************************
Registered Office and Contact Address:
4240 Nash Court
Oxford Business Park South
Oxford
OX4 2RU
Tel: +44/0 1865 337400  Fax: +44/0 1865 337433
Web: <http://www.csw.co.uk>

Registered in England No. 4198197

Legal Disclaimer: <http://www.csw.co.uk/disclaimer.htm>
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Tor Haug [mailto:tor.haug@c2i.net]
Sent: 15 December 2004 11:46
To: egov@lists.oasis-open.org; peter@justbrown.net
Cc: board@eprforum.org
Subject: [egov] EPR and e-Folders

OASIS e-Government TC - new standard for e-Folder



David RR Webber, asked me to inform you about the standardization work we
are doing in the field of e-Folders and EPR:



I think it is a great idea for you to do some draft e-Folders ideas and post
them - you will get great feedback - and strong attention for EPR.and
e-Folders

Just remember though keep it really really really simple - peel the onion
one layer at a time.

 Less is more.  They will appreciate you sending just an outline first.
Then updating that as it develops.

 Also - big advantage of smaller peices - is eventually they will read it -
after you have posted the tenth posting with

new updates...



I am not sure my message is simple enough - lets I am what's happen. I am
observer in the eGov TC. If this will be of interest for the TC I will join
as a full member:



Please read the attached document before you read this comments:



The e-Folder standard includes much more than some single metaphors.



A standard for construction of e-Folders does not exist. Why not? The only
reason is that nobody has thought of the possibilities before. I myself have
worked with standardizing of the elements in electronic processes (EPR). The
brother and sister of EPR is e-Folders. EPR demands standardization of the
structure and functionality in e-Folders. The EPR standard includes exactly
the same as the standard for the e-Folders.



I am quite sure that standardizing of e-Folders is necessary in order to
achieve organizational interoperability. The structure of a folder must be
the same for all organizations involved. The functions in the folder must
also be the same. E.g. the folder must include workflow, the functions in
work flow must be the same and not differ from one to another.



If I am right the e-Folder standard must interest both standard
organizations and all organizations working with eGov. e-Folders seems to be
a common way of presentation information and helping tools in many
applications.



In the enclosed invitation there are some simple examples underlying the
needs of standardization.



Some days ago I had 3 interesting calls:



-             One was with Trond-Arne Undheim in Brussels. He works for R&D
within eGov in EU. I tried to convince him of how necessary it is to
standardize structure and functionalities in e-Folders. I believe he
accepted that. We also discussed standardizing on functions. I gave him one
example - functions in workflow. This area represents chaos, a lot of
proprietary solutions and difficulty of getting acceptance for standards. I
believe:

-             If we isolate the functions the functions in itself - it will
not be difficult to achieve agreement on functions to be standardized

-             If OASIS eGov TC can delivered this functions as freeware - we
can hope that eGov in European countries decided to follow the standard.

This is just one example - there are many others



-             The next two calls had to do with e-Folders. Erik Lillevold
works for an EU project with the aim of following the development and the
process of establish a new law. Håvard Hegna at Norsk Regnesentral told me
about another EU project - to make it easier for citizens to move from one
country to another. Both projects would have advantages of standardized
folders with freeware.



Let's say that an e-Folder Workshop based on the software components exist.
It would be much easier to carry through both projects using the Workshop as
a development arena.



I wonder: How many projects do EU have which could take advantages on an
e-Folder Workshop? I believe that number is large. It would be an excellent
R&D project to find out the potential. We will gladly help the R&D group in
the Commission to carry through this project. And it will not take long
time - and cost much money.



I hope to get acceptance both in Brussels and among OASIS eGOV TC for the
need of an e-Folder standard.



The main problem is financing the work. Without money we can either travel
or establish and work through alliances.



The basic standards will also be the basis for establishing sector standards
with workshop for the sector. E.g.: e-Construction, e-Healthcare,
e-Community



Tor Haug  +47 9005 0506



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php.