RE: [tgf] Information about EU "CAMSS" project; Outline of possible TGF work

[Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>]

John,

Indeed, to clarify, that is my proposal, that CAMSS would be a separate (and much smaller) deliverable. We can discuss and decide how that is “branded” as a separate set of “patterns” that extend the “TGF Pattern Language” without extending the “core” TGF as a framework. We need to consider whether the separate CAMSS deliverable should be a standards-track deliverable or not; and if so, whether it is something we would also want progressed independently to an OASIS Standard. I will outline some of the options and questions in a short set of slides that I will develop and circulate.

Regards,

Peter

 

From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2014 01:04
To: TGF TC List
Subject: Re: [tgf] Information about EU "CAMSS" project; Outline of possible TGF work

 

Peter

 

If I'm reading you right are you suggesting that we do not develop the CAMSS piece as a TGF v3 but rather as a separate document?  if so that would point to us progressing TGF v2 through to OASIS standard.  That does not align with what I proposed on the call yesterday?

 

I should add that I'm happy to go that route if that's what the TC wants.

 

 

Everybody

 

It would be good to get feedback from all members on this point please.

 

 

John

 

From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2014, 18:44
Subject: [tgf] Information about EU "CAMSS" project; Outline of possible TGF work

 

Hi,

As requested on the call today, some short comments and pointers to resources. At the end I outline very summary thoughts about the opportunity for our TC.

 

History

The “Common Assessment Methodology for Standards and Specifications” (CAMSS) is a European Commission funded project, managed by the service responsible for the ISA Programme (“Interoperability of Services between Administrations, previously ‘IDABC’)

 

CAMSS started as a project in its current form back in 2008. The project deliverables are maintained on the Commission’s “JoinUp” platform (a sort of github for the Commission) – this platform was originally scoped as an Open Source Repository but has since grown to cover other projects – which explains some of the confusion and concerns expressed about whether CAMSS (and indeed other projects) are automatically presumed to be “pro open source”. It’s a red herring in my view and an orthogonal concern.

 

Resources

A quick high-level overview is at

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/camss/description

The main entry page to the main documentation and resources is

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/camss/wiki/camss-01-main-page

 

Methodology

As well as the main methodology, the Commission has developed a series of tools and support materials for anyone to use; and – in common with the “JoinUp” wiki-based, community model – any registered user can submit results of their own assessments and ideas. As there is little governance of the process of how contributions are made, I can only say: caveat emptor.

 

CAMSS envisages seven major assessment criteria and three ‘scenarios’.

The three scenarios concern what is being assessed and for whom:

-          An assessment of a standardisation organization;

-          An assessment of a technical specification or a standard for adoption by public administrations; or

-          An assessment and selection of technical specification or standard for specific business needs and requirements.

 

The seven criteria for assessments are:

-          Applicability of the proposed standard (including issues about available alternatives, compatibility, and dependencies)

-          Maturity

-          Openness (including nature of the standards body curating the standard, its processes and documentation)

-          IPR (including essential claims and licensing terms)

-          Market support

-          Potential (including impact, risk, maintenance and maintainability)

-          Coherence

 

A couple of personal comments:

Main strength? It exists. Nobody has done anything similar or in such detail. There has been a very serious attempt to cover all types of questions likely to be raised about the value of any standard, and from very many perspectives, technical, legal and operational.

Main weakness? Too micro-managed and over-engineered. The devil is in the details certainly but the CAMSS overall fails to inspire and engage senior managers and C-level execs. It is, as the draft ‘workbooks’ show, too focused on detail and has a preponderance of dubious quantifications of essentially qualitative assessments. Care is thus needed.

 

Opportunity for TGF?

Simplify and draw out the key aspects that can be used as part of ‘IT Governance’ conversations. My feeling is that anything we do on CAMSS should not be an extension of TGF v2 – for all the reasons that Colin outlined on the call, including the risk of imbalance of emphasis in the overall framework – but should rather be a (short) independent deliverable. We could optionally cast this as a ‘pattern’ or small set of ‘patterns’ that are adopted as a distinct Committee Specification or Committee Note, and that cross-reference the existing pattern T2 “Technology Development and Management” in the TGF (which itself already references the European Interoperability Framework, of which CAMSS is intended as a part).

With such an approach – a distinct normative or non-normative document – we would need also to consider how to ‘brand’ the deliverable: will it be “TGF – Patterns for Assessing Standards” or something similar?

 

Hope this all helps – comments and feedback welcome

 

Peter

 

Peter F Brown Independent Consultant CIPP/IT

”Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform”

200 S Barrington Ave., #49719

Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278

www.PeterFBrown.com