RE: Interoperability ..

Hello Oscar,

 

I would agree that this part is a bit weak.

 

Some suggestions you may find relevant for strengthening it:

 

*         There is an EIF 2.0 draft version already, [1] which presents
a slightly different definition from the 1st version (see part 3.3.1.1
of the document).

*         A collection of interoperability definition and a relevant
discussion can be found at [2].

*         From EU some relevant references include [3] (study on local
and regional interoperability problems with suggestions to the various
stakeholders), [4] an initiative to create a reusable library of
interoperability assets at the EU level

*         Some national interoperability initiatives (not sure whether
these are the latest versions of the documents):

o        Germany,
http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/Portals/0/standards-and-Architectures-for--Gover
nment-applications-version-3_0-pdf.pdf
<http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/Portals/0/standards-and-Architectures-for--Gove
rnment-applications-version-3_0-pdf.pdf>  

o        Australia,
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/australian-government-technical-i
nteroperability-framework/index.html 

o        UK, http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/egif.asp 

o        Esthonia,
http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/Portals/0/Estonian%20IT%20Interoperability%20Fra
mework.pdf
<http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/Portals/0/Estonian%20IT%20Interoperability%20Fr
amework.pdf>  

o        New Zealand, http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif
<http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif>  

*         In the definition part, the ID documents example discusses a
very specific aspect of IOP and does not touch other important aspects
(e.g. semantics, organizational and legal issues, etc).

*         In the benefits section, I would add:

o        Organizational coherence and integration: Interoperability is a
means towards more coherent and integrated operation for the overall
public administration domain. The current stovepipe organization of
public institutions prevents the horizontal movement of information and
allows only vertical flows according to the bureaucratic paradigm
(command-report). Cross-agency interoperability makes the horizontal
flow of information feasible and allows better communication and
coordination amongst separate agencies.

*         In the Main Issues and Limitations section I would add:

o        Cultural/Political Aspects: In general and historically, public
agencies have developed a culture that does not promote cross-agency
sharing. In many cases, agencies are reluctant to change existing
processes, open data and services to external parties and re-negotiate
their way of operation with external parties, who owns and controls
what, in the new environment that usually appears after the execution of
an IOP project that links together two or more agencies. 

 

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31597

[2]
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.104.6619&rep=re
p1&type=pdf 

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7038/254 

[4] http://www.semic.eu/semic/ 

 

 

Best regards,

Vassilios

 

 

________________________________

From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Oscar Azanon
Sent: 14 April 2009 22:00
To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Subject: Interoperability ..

 

Hello everybody,

 

I'm looking at the interoperability section and I suggest we should push
it a little bit forward .. Has someone identified any topic missing in
the current status, or alternative visions?

 

Another question raised - can someone provide pointers to experiences /
standards / etc. we should mention? For instance, government
interoperability frameworks, etc.

 

Thanks!

 

ocr