[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] RE: Issue 13 (General)- Technology Management Framework -need to include Core Standards Set? - open
I'm
OK with the words (in fact the concept is really really good) except: "For example, a business wishing to establish itself in a
second country may need to provide credentials and government-authenticated information
that is managed by a government agency in the first country." To be consistent, and allowing for the emerging trend towards
using private (business)sector credentials we need to generalize this to
something like… "For example, a business wishing to establish itself in a
second country may need to provide authenticated information and credentials
that is managed by government or business in the first country." I'm struggling with the diagram personally. I get the
relationship between the two circles, but I get lost in the sub circles within
the main left hand one… It could be only me, so if everyone else gets it, that
fine. If I am not alone, that may suggest a sentence in the text that
explains those right after " In the figure below, we see that
collaboration between TGF programs is favoured at the political, legal and
organisational levels and only later, if and when necessary, at the more
‘tightly-coupled’ semantic and technical levels". Cheers Colin From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
On the first point about a common set of core technology standards,
the conclusion we came to in the CS Transform paper was that most/all
governments were spending a lot of time and effort creating and maintaining
their technical standards lists, which by and large was a waste of time because
as there is so much commonality a more global approach would save time and
money all round. Finding a body to take on that function though would be
the sticking point as we said. If this TC or the eGov MS can do something
to help with this issue then great, but as both Peter and Andy have pointed
out, and as was evident from our CST research, maintenance of a list is
essential otherwise it soon becomes useless shelf-ware. For now can we
park this discussion because it is not an issue for the Primer. We can
come back to it after we’ve got that stake in the ground. On the revised wording and diagram for Collaboration between
Programmes, both seem clear enough to me and make the point succinctly.
In terms of placement within the Primer I would leave it where we currently
have it. Although it might be of more general interest it is,
unless I’m mistaken, not proven in practice, ie there are no current
examples of inter-programme collaboration, so high-lighting it too much might
be unadvisable at this stage. But I’d welcome Chris’ view on
this. Clearly we need early closure on this issue so that we can
get to agreement on the Primer next week so can I ask for any views to Peter
asap please. John From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Andy, Thanks for this. I think your ideas are spot on the money. I’d definitely be in favour of an approach that favours identifying
broad categories and items of ‘functionality’ (in the broadest
sense) and ‘what you should look (out) for in a standard’ to
address those functionalities, rather than a hard-wired, tight-coupling. At a more detailed level – keeping track of which
standards are best adapted to which problem; who is using which ones; what are
the latest versions, etc – I have drafted (but not yet submitted) a
possible work item to the ‘OASIS eGov Member Section’ that could take
this further. I’ll talk with John (with his Member Section Chair hat on)
and we can report back to the TC about whether we think the idea has legs and
whteher it should be pursued as a Member Section work item or be dealt with in
the TGF… In the meantime, below is some draft wording that I have
proposed at the end of the collaborative stakeholder governance section that
Nig, Chris and I worked on after last Thursday’s call – you will
see in the final paragraph the relevance and link to your arguments - but, as
I’ve mentioned to Nig and Chris, this might be placed elsewhere as it is
of more general interest, not just restricted to the stakeholder model. Comments on both the wording and the placement are welcome. Cheers, Peter == draft – not for citation == Collaboration between TGF Programs The [collaborative stakeholder] model clearly focuses attention within
any specific TGF program. However (and increasingly) collaboration is required
also between governments and, by implication, between TGF programs. In the figure below, we see that collaboration between TGF
programs is favoured at the political, legal and organisational levels and only
later, if and when necessary, at the more ‘tightly-coupled’
semantic and technical levels. This approach is also consistent with the SOA paradigm for
service development – not only are requirements defined and services
offered independently of any underlying technology or infrastructure but also
one TGF program can be seen (and may need to be seen) as a ‘service
provider’ to another TGF program’s ‘service request’.
For example, a business wishing to establish itself in a second country may need
to provide credentials and government-authenticated information that is managed
by a government agency in the first country. A further advantage of this approach is that it becomes easier
to identify and manage high level government requirements for services: whether
in the choice of ICT standards that may need to be used to address a particular
technology issue or determining the criteria for awarding public procurement
contracts, this approach allows a ‘loose-coupling’ at the level of
clearly defined high-level policy needs rather than the more tightly-coupled
and often brittle approach of specifying particular technologies, software or
systems. == end == From: Andy
Hopkirk [mailto:andy.hopkirk@gmail.com] hi - sorry been out of the loop
recently and not able to contribute... re: lists of standards... On Tue, Mar 1,
2011 at 9:54 PM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz>
wrote: Yep, I think giving examples
of profiles of standard X or Y would offer more value, but they are just
examples, since there are country or industry specific contexts for them in
most cases so they may not suit all situations. Cheers Colin From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com]
I'm happy that we
address this aspect later. Nig: I’m
taking your different points as separate issues. John
has already commented: “It has always been my intention to address
this point once we have got the Primer out of the way. I would like to
set up a sub-committee to produce the core set of standards and then we can
issue them as a CN or possible look for some other body to take them on and
maintain them. And in the same vein I want to do some work on common data
standards but again that’s for later. So can I propose we defer
anything further on these aspects for now?” My
own view (as TC member, not as an editor): I agree that we should defer for
now. I’m not convinced (any more, although I’m probably an apostate
on this) of the value of lists of core standards – our emphasis ought to
be shifted towards lists of core functional issues that standards ought to
address. Standards may, do, evolve in light of technological change, but core
functional requirements (defined in the broadest sense) tend to persist more
and are less prone to updating and currency problems. Other
comments? Peter From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com]
There are
some items that do not have a home indicated for them in the document. They
probably belong in Part III(d). and will probably be separate committee Notes
but probably need to be discussed by the group (perhaps initially on the call
later this week?).as The areas
that come to my mind (there may be more) are: 1. Core Standards Set. One of the
CSTransform papers identifies a long tail of standards when various Ifs are
surveyed. It would seem sensible for us to at least have a stab at defining the
core set. Possibly, this could be done alongside and take cognisance of the UK
Standards survey that is currently being undertaken. ==== CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. ==== |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]