John,
My
initial assessment can be summed up as:
-
Use
Cases, good;
-
List
of consulted and documented references, good;
-
Domain
Model, appallingly naïve and ultimately useless (literally
not figuratively);
-
References
to (and justifications for using) StratML, FRBR, SKOS, etc.
seem arbitrary and inconsistent;
-
I
am still listed as a Contributor although I have formally
disassociated myself from the work.
They
shied away from directly using some very well thought
through models, like the “Concept Model for the UK Public
Sector” (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/A-Concept-Model-for-the-UK-Public-Sector.pdf)
that Nig has previously referenced and instead applied the
“Not Invented Here” principle.
Finally,
they have failed in one aspect of their core mission: it is
decidedly *not* a vocabulary. Neither is it a domain
model (the domain of application is not sufficiently
defined) nor a conceptual model (there are too many core
concepts missing and too much detail present).
Sometimes
we just have to give a “total thumbs down” if it damages the
OASIS brand and recognition for quality output. I’m not sure
we are at that point but certainly not far from it.
As
to the question as to whether we can use this as the basis
or part of our Core Terminology/Reference Model – I would
say, simply, no. It is flawed at its foundations and we
should not build upon it. When I compare this with the UK
effort whose mission was that the model:
“Contains a small number of
concepts, which can be applied to any part of the public
sector;
Is immune to
future government reorganisations;
Is simple,
easy to read and well understood by the audiences”
I
would far prefer to endorse this as something worthy of our
interest. It fulfils its objectives, is simple, clear,
coherent and well designed (and, no, I had nothing to do
with designing it!)
Cheers,
Peter
We
discussed this item on our last TC call and I’ve copied
earlier drafts for your comments. Now the final draft is
out for public review and I would like to put a response in
from the TC please. I know there were some misgivings about
the scope and intent of this piece of work but I hope we can
provide some “constructive” criticism rather than a total
thumbs down. Can I have your comments please by 22nd
so that I can compile a formal TC response by the deadline
of 28th.
I
would also like your views on whether we can use this as the
basis or part of our Core Terminology/Reference Model. No
doubt we will want to add to it but does it provide some
basics that we can use?
John
Dear members
of the working group,
We are pleased
to inform you that the Core Public Service Vocabulary has
entered its Public Review period.
The draft to
be reviewed is available at
Please
communicate the call for review through your networks.
With best
regards,
Thodoris
--
Thodoris
Papadopoulos
Informatics
Development Agency
Ministry of
Administrative Reform and eGovernance
Greece
t:
+302131306072
f: +302131306020
The information contained in this email is CONFIDENTIAL
and may contain proprietary information. It is meant
solely for the intended recipient. Access to this email
and documents attached by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient or have received this
communication in error, please, return this email to
sender immediately and delete the email, contents and
documents from your computer; any retention, disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in
reliance on this, is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.