RE: [egov] EPR and e-Folders

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Ann :

Admire the eloquence of your rant and totally agree with KISS .. but I
think it is wrongly directed at the  e-Folders (and BCM and ebSOA)
efforts.

Simply put, I believe the XDS work on defining how e-Folders can
facilitate interoperation of health management info demonstrates how a
standard can be 'developed with good input from user-side
practitioners'(the membership of professional societies).

carl

<quote who="Ann Wrightson">
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi