Re: Interoperability ..

Thanks, Oscar. I've just opened ISSUE-21 to keep track of the examples.

There are now five issues opened about interoperability:
http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

Please remember to work with the original commenters and discuss here  
as needed before adding the text to the editor's draft. I think that  
adding those examples makes perfect sense and does not need much if  
any discussion (not sure what others think) but other issues may be  
more tricky to deal with.

Thanks again!
Jose.


El 17/04/2009, a las 15:41, Oscar Azanon escribió:
> Sure, Jose – will update the section and will let you know by next  
> week .
>
> Cheers!
>
> ocr
>
> De: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ] En nombre de Jose M. Alonso
> Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de abril de 2009 23:36
> Para: Oscar Azanon
> CC: eGov IG; Vassilios Peristeras
> Asunto: Re: Interoperability ..
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> Please, also remember that Trond sent several that I think should be  
> added to the section, too:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Mar/0025
>
> There are also 4 open issues related to interoperability that you  
> should think about at:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open
>
> Although we have time until the 26th, the sooner authors can send  
> texts or add them to the document itself, the better, so people  
> could see them sooner and still have some time to comment on them.
>
> I think that adding the suggestions sent by Trond and Vassilios  
> could improve the section significantly. AFAIR, you have a jigedit  
> account and can edit the doc in place, just keep me updated so I  
> could make the necessary changes according to W3C pubrules if needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Jose.
>
>
> El 15/04/2009, a las 9:56, Peristeras, Vassilios escribió:
> 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--Government-applications-version-3_0-pdf.pdf
> o        Australia, http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/australian-government-technical-interoperability-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%20Framework.pdf
> o        New Zealand, 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=rep1&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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.57/2060 - Release Date:  
> 04/15/09 06:34:00
>