conceptual model -- Re: types of use cases? -- Re: regrets for today's meeting

All,

Not as an answer to Owen's message, but I'm copying below a message in  
the thread that was somewhat missing. It provides a graphic that  
Vassilios attached to explain the conceptual model.

It may be doable to apply that model to many other countries if kept  
at such an abstract layer, not sure about the benefit though, but  
interesting in learning about the experiences.

Said that, I agreed with Vassilios on that:
1) developing the model is out of scope for this Group
2) identifying there's a need for one is within scope
    (if we agree on the need as a Group, of course)

Hence why I encouraged all to have this discussion in the open.

-- Jose



El 29/10/2008, a las 13:56, Peristeras, Vassilios escribió:
> Jose, thanks for the comments.
>
> To give a hands-on example, please take a look below to the model.  
> The model is also available in OWL and WSML. Do you think that  
> something like this may appear different in different countries? For  
> the time being, we found it applicable at least to three EU  
> countries where we tested it and modeled services (Greece,Cyprus,  
> Italy) but I really don’t think that applying it to e.g. Africa  
> would make any difference.
>
> Best regards,
> Vassilios
>
> I apologize for the teleconf today. I won’t participate but will  
> follow the minutes.

>
El 30/10/2008, a las 15:41, Owen Ambur escribió:

> Vassilios, per Jose’s request, I am addressing this to the listserv  
> so that others can join in our dialog if they wish.
>
> You have touched on a key point, i.e., distinguishing between what  
> should be confined to the government domain versus that which cuts  
> across all organizations.  In the U.S. government relevant policy  
> includes OMB Circular A-76 and the FAIR Act. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a076.html 
>  & http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/fair-index.html
>
> In my view, there is nothing “inherently governmental” about  
> software programming logic.  In general the only thing that  
> distinguishes governmental activities from commerce and industry is  
> the kinds of *data* (types of records) required to conduct “We the  
> People’s” business (“in Order to create a more perfect Union”). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Preamble 
> :_Statement_of_purpose
>
> That’s why I  believe the Data Reference Model (DRM) is the only one  
> of the U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) “models” that  
> really matters.  I don’t believe we can truly understand what our  
> “business” is without understanding the information required to  
> conduct it.
>
> Even though I worked for the top-ranked enterprise architecture  
> program in the U.S. government, I did not see any value in the FEA  
> Business Reference Model (BRM) … until I rendered it as a “strategic  
> plan” in StratML format:  http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO   
> Viewed as a set of goals and objectives, I can see the potential  
> value of the BRM – but only if actual performance against those  
> objectives is measured and reported to stakeholders (i.e., citizens).
>
> On the other hand, since .gov agencies are wasting so much of the  
> taxpayers’ money on software applications and systems that are  
> “proprietary” in nature and cannot efficiently and effectively share  
> records, I do also believe that the FEA Technical Reference Model  
> (TRM) is important – to the degree that the commercial sector lacks  
> incentives &/or cannot be trusted to specify, implement, and enforce  
> compliance with standards for interoperability.  Again, however, the  
> TRM is only meaningful to the degree that it is used to measure and  
> report actual performance of agencies in implementing and using  
> those standards.
>
> The FEA Service Component Reference Model (SRM) comes closer to  
> modeling the “internal parts and components of a public service.” http://xml.gov/stratml/FEASRM.xml 
>   However, from my perspective, few, if any of those “components”  
> are inherently governmental in nature.  So I don’t believe  
> government should waste the taxpayers’ money competing with the  
> private sector  to reinvent them.  On the other hand, I do believe  
> the government has a role on behalf of citizens and taxpayers to  
> ensure that commercial enterprises are implementing the relevant  
> *technical* standards for interoperability among those software  
> components and services.  In the U.S. federal government, relevant  
> guidance includes OMB Circular A-119 and the National Technology  
> Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html 
>  & http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Conformity/nttaa.cfm
>
> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP
> Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
> Member, AIIM iECM Committee
> Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
> Membership Director, FIRM Board
> Former Project Manager, ET.gov
> Brief Bio
>
>
> From: Peristeras, Vassilios [mailto:vassilios.peristeras@deri.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:55 AM
> To: Owen Ambur; Jose M. Alonso
> Cc: John Sheridan; Kevin Novak; Rick Murphy; Óscar Azañón
> Subject: RE: types of use cases? -- Re: regrets for today's meeting
>
> Hello Owen,
>
> >>I believe we already have enough (too many) large "conceptual  
> models."
> This is true ...but two observations:
> a)  Yes, we have (too) many eGov conceptual models modeling  
> different things. However, we are still not sure what each model  
> presents. E.g. in my understanding in FEA there is no representation  
> of what a public service is and how it operates. BRM rather proposes  
> a functional clustering of service identifying public sectors (The  
> Business Reference Model provides a framework that facilitates a  
> functional (as opposed to organizational) view of the federal  
> government’s Lines of Businesses.” [1]) But this has nothing to do  
> with modeling the internal parts and components of a public service.  
> So I think we have to be careful when we say that we have many  
> conceptual models. Conceptual models of what?
> b)  “Large” is not what we are looking for, as we need simple, small  
> and extensible models as you already mentioned. I agree XML is a  
> good tool for creating such models. I prefer RDF but this is another  
> discussion.
>
>
> >>While the IG doesn't have the means to *populate* such a model, it  
> should
> >>not be a large undertaking to specify an XML schema (XSD) that  
> others could
> >>use to contribute toward the population of a worldwide model for  
> government
> >>services
> I agree that the IG won’t populate such a model. I also agree with  
> Jose previous remarks that perhaps this is something for another IG  
> or WG. But I thought that this is one of the main goals for this IG:  
> to identify areas where future work could go on towards more  
> detailed specs and not to create any spec in any specific area.  
> Perhaps I misunderstood the IG mission.
>
>
> >>The XSD for the U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
> >>Business Reference Model (BRM) could be taken as a starting point:
> >>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/FEA_XML_Schema_Rev_2.3.xsd
> As already explained, the BRM and other FEA models could provide  
> insights towards this goal. However, there are some other  
> initiatives that are closer to what is discussed here (e.g. UK CGIM,  
> OASIS Reference Model for SOA and more).
>
>
> >>However, I believe the IG's time would be better spent  
> highlighting the
> >>necessity of identifying, implementing, and measuring/reporting  
> conformance
> >>to *technical standards* for interoperability.
> A general observation from a modeling perspective: the more we move  
> towards technical standards, the more communality we may find with  
> other domains. For example I still can not see why the FEA DRM model  
> is aneGovernment data model as the larger DRM part might have come  
> from other domains, too. I think that W3C at this technical level  
> could help to identify existing low level technical (thus globally  
> applicable) standards and then try to disseminate and persuade  
> governments to use them (e.g. Web Services, XML, RDFa, microformats  
> etc). The more we try to speak of the government business per se the  
> more we move to non-technical issues. The FEA BMR is clearly such a  
> model, very useful to be used for creating a map and categorization  
> of the administrative space (or jungle;-)… but not for modeling a  
> public service operation as explained beforehand.
>
> My personal stand is that we can achieve many things with the usage  
> of low level standards but if our goal is a) to really promote  
> semantics and relevant technologies and b) we really believe in the  
> business value these technologies may bring then you definitely need  
> to create our own small yet extensible domain-specific models, i.e.  
> we need specific and commonly agreed XML schemas that will capture  
> the semantics (conceptual models) not just the use of XML (technical  
> standards). All these may be marked as “conceptual models” and  
> ideally should also be independent of technology to be reusable.
> Towards this direction modeling in a generic way the public service  
> is an interesting exercise and could provide one quite useful of the  
> many different “conceptual models” we may need, i.e. in the context  
> of developing semantic SOAs, and/or annotating public services  
> descriptions as currently available through numerous national and  
> federal eGov portals with RDFa on the web.
>
> Best regards,
> Vassilios
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/CRM.PDF
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen Ambur [mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net]
> Sent: 29 October 2008 15:30
> To: 'Jose M. Alonso'
> Cc: Peristeras, Vassilios; 'John Sheridan'; 'Kevin Novak'; 'Rick  
> Murphy'; 'Óscar Azañón'
> Subject: RE: types of use cases? -- Re: regrets for today's meeting
>
> I believe we already have enough (too many) large "conceptual  
> models."  What
> I believe is needed are more and better *implementations* of  
> relatively
> small components that constitute measurable objectives toward the
> realization of larger goals upon which some degree of consensus  
> exists.
>
> On the other hand, to the degree that folks may wish to collaborate  
> on the
> specification of a common model for describing public services, it  
> seems to
> me that the differences Jose references could easily be addressed as
> *extensions* to the core set that are deemed common across most, if  
> not all
> governments.  ("Extensible" is XML's first name.)
>
> While the IG doesn't have the means to *populate* such a model, it  
> should
> not be a large undertaking to specify an XML schema (XSD) that  
> others could
> use to contribute toward the population of a worldwide model for  
> government
> services.  The XSD for the U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
> Business Reference Model (BRM) could be taken as a starting point:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/ 
> FEA_XML_Schema_Rev_2.3.xsd
>
> However, I believe the IG's time would be better spent highlighting  
> the
> necessity of identifying, implementing, and measuring/reporting  
> conformance
> to *technical standards* for interoperability.
>
> Owen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose M. Alonso [mailto:josema@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:34 AM
> To: Owen Ambur
> Cc: Vassilios Peristeras; John Sheridan; Kevin Novak; Rick Murphy;  
> Óscar
> Azañón
> Subject: Re: types of use cases? -- Re: regrets for today's meeting
>
> Well, I see two sides of "common specification for describing public
> services": technical and business/conceptual.
>
> The one you refer to below would fall in the technical side, and would
> be doable. The other, I'm not that sure. I'm just involved very
> slightly on R&D and found some papers on the subject and organizations
> working on this but, every time I think of it, looks like something
> not possible to me.
>
> I don't see how there could be just one single conceptual model of
> eGov services that could be applicable to numerous countries. The
> differences are too large. I see that Vassilios mentions a pilot in
> Cyprus in his reply. This seems doable (though yet costly) to me, but
> I don't think that model would work in say Angola, Argentina, Ghana...
> even the US or Spain.
>
> I'd like to be proven wrong :)
>
> I'm also copying Oscar. My institute has been working with the State
> government to open source their Interoperability Framework (this was
> finally announced last week, see http://www.asturias.es/openfwpa). I
> remember hearing Oscar and some of my colleagues at CTIC about the
> underlying conceptual model, and that the FW is much more than code.
> I'm wondering how he envisions others will use it and implement it,
> and I'd appreciate his thoughts on this.
>
> Vassilios, if you believe that reference conceptual model is doable
> and that you could find interested organizations, why not talk to them
> and start an XG? If chartered appropriately, it could coordinate with
> the IG and become something else (maybe IG or WG) when re-chartering
> the eGov Activity, who knows...
>
> Jose.
>
>
> El 23/10/2008, a las 5:00, Owen Ambur escribió:
> > Hey, guys, point b) below makes me think of the U.S. Federal
> > Enterprise
> > Architecture (FEA) Business Reference Model (BRM) and Service
> > Component
> > Reference Model (SRM), both of which are available in StratML format
> > at
> > http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO or, more specifically,
> > http://xml.gov/stratml/FEABRM.xml & http://xml.gov/stratml/ 
> FEASRM.xml
> >
> > It also reminds me of GSA's OSERA:
> > https://osera.gov/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.1.38 I'm copying Rick
> > Murphy in
> > the event he may have comments or suggestions to offer in that  
> regard.
> >
> > However, as per my exchange with Mike Daconta, I believe it is more
> > important to focus on finalizing the XML schema for the FEA Data
> > Reference
> > Model (DRM).  See  http://xml.gov/index.asp#DRM and particularly
> > http://xml.gov/draft/drm20060105.xsd
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
> > ]
> > On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
> > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:23 PM
> > To: Peristeras, Vassilios
> > Cc: John Sheridan; Kevin Novak; public-egov-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: types of use cases? -- Re: regrets for today's meeting
> >
> >
> > Hi Vassilios,
> >
> > [+Group, this needs discussion]
> >
> > I added your two ideas to the wiki so we could discuss at the F2F.
> >
> > Anyway, I believe these are a bit different from what we have
> > discussed so far. Have any of those been implemented and deployed  
> by a
> > government already?
> >
> > I'm asking because I believe this shows also another issue for the
> > Group: what kind of use cases do we want? Real and implemented
> > solutions or also ideas that could address some eGov issues?
> >
> > We might want both, but I have a slight preference for the former.  
> As
> > we recently discussed several times on "web basics" even basic  
> things
> > like persistence are not being correctly implemented or government
> > don't provide any data in reusable open formats although they have
> > been around for quite some time already.
> >
> > Would love to hear the opinion of the Group so we could focus the  
> F2F
> > discussion even better.
> >
> > Thanks much again for sending those!
> > Jose.
> >
> >
> > El 15/10/2008, a las 13:53, Peristeras, Vassilios escribió:
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your message.
> >>
> >> I have two areas in my mind.
> >>
> >> a) The first could be actually related to an existing W3C
> >> submission, namely SIOC (Semantically Interlinked On-line
> >> Communities) which is an attempt to create a simple ontology for
> >> linking the blog sphere and web-based discussions. Recently adopted
> >> by Yahoo [1]. This may fit to “Transparency and Participation” and
> >> more specifically to
> >> Engage: Using the web to interact with citizens and businesses, 1.
> >> Government to citizen - e.g. blogs by ministers and officials, or,
> >> publishing consultation documents as wikis or with a "comment on
> >> this" facilities.
> >>
> >> b) The second could be linked with a common specification for
> >> describing public services. The approach is similar to SIOC: a
> >> simple and easy to be used ontology which could give unifying
> >> semantics (annotations) to service descriptions based on different
> >> perspectives by service providers. We already have an RDFa based
> >> prototype on this that uses an (eGov) extension of SA-REST as the
> >> annotation vocabulary.
> >> I think this fits to both Provide: Using the web to deliver public
> >> services and Enable: Using the web as a platform to deliver data  
> for
> >> re-use
> >>
> >>
> >> Simplicity and clear value of the approach is key for future
> >> community/governmental adoption thus the use cases will try to
> >> highlight on these.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you find these ideas relevant.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Vassilios
> >>
> >> [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/smguide/SIOC.html
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Cases
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>