Comments on: eGovernment Interoperability Frameworks: A Survey of the Past Ten Years http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/ Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:30:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: arebentisch http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-163 arebentisch Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:54:26 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-163 "It’s possible that the technically-focused approach contributed a whole lot less to improvements in eGovernment interoperability over the last decade than some governments and practitioners believe." - Could not agree less! It is always about small and smart engineering decisions, not "grand strategies" for the digital knowledge society. We observe professionally myriads of these high level approaches which demonstrate their ineffectiveness in terms of outcome. What stifles my use of egovernment services, e.g. reporting an criminal offence to the police is a poorly designed web form, or a web site that forces a technical choice on me, not a lack of a regional dimension in the Lisbon strategy for ICT digital services eInclusion. It is the same in many fields, as a student what took my precious time and productivity were dysfunctional xerox machines in the university library with a local monopoly; and of course this is off-the-radar for educational strategies for better universities. The socialist experiments clearly demonstrated that agenda driven politics leads to failure, ordo liberals offer better advise: it is upon the government to enforce the market order and make competition work. Technical interoperability enforcement is therefore core of public sector involvement in the field of ICT, it is about laying the condition for the functioning of the market. Apparently this public mission is not well understood yet, and administration takes the lazy chair and watches the market struggle with its self-inflicted dependencies. For interoperability enforcement we need more Hobbes and less Rousseau. “It’s possible that the technically-focused approach contributed a whole lot less to improvements in eGovernment interoperability over the last decade than some governments and practitioners believe.” – Could not agree less! It is always about small and smart engineering decisions, not “grand strategies” for the digital knowledge society. We observe professionally myriads of these high level approaches which demonstrate their ineffectiveness in terms of outcome. What stifles my use of egovernment services, e.g. reporting an criminal offence to the police is a poorly designed web form, or a web site that forces a technical choice on me, not a lack of a regional dimension in the Lisbon strategy for ICT digital services eInclusion. It is the same in many fields, as a student what took my precious time and productivity were dysfunctional xerox machines in the university library with a local monopoly; and of course this is off-the-radar for educational strategies for better universities. The socialist experiments clearly demonstrated that agenda driven politics leads to failure, ordo liberals offer better advise: it is upon the government to enforce the market order and make competition work. Technical interoperability enforcement is therefore core of public sector involvement in the field of ICT, it is about laying the condition for the functioning of the market. Apparently this public mission is not well understood yet, and administration takes the lazy chair and watches the market struggle with its self-inflicted dependencies. For interoperability enforcement we need more Hobbes and less Rousseau.

]]> By: Ajit Jaokar http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Ajit Jaokar Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:48:56 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-160 Thanks Steve<br/>I see some parallels with Semantic Interoperability and 'federated Identity'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_identity) ex: from wikipedia - For example, a traveler could be a flight passenger as well as a hotel guest.<br/><br/>-- If the airline and the hotel use a federated identity management system, this means that they have a contracted mutual trust in each other's authentication of the user. The traveler could identify him/herself once as a customer for booking the flight and this identity can be carried over to be used for the reservation of a hotel room.<br/>---<br/>So, in that sense, it takes the Identity interoperability at a higher level of abstraction. Which makes it much more 'doable' since you can use many different systems/ technologies and yet they can talk at a higher level of federated identity(the option being to force everyone to come to the same Identity standard first) which is the classic standardization problem.<br/><br/>So, I do agree that semantic interoperability seems to be a good direction(and by that I mean practical approach). The challenge is to convey the idea to the wider people. I will have a look at the links you mention kind rgds Ajit Thanks Steve
I see some parallels with Semantic Interoperability and ‘federated Identity’(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_identity) ex: from wikipedia – For example, a traveler could be a flight passenger as well as a hotel guest.

– If the airline and the hotel use a federated identity management system, this means that they have a contracted mutual trust in each other’s authentication of the user. The traveler could identify him/herself once as a customer for booking the flight and this identity can be carried over to be used for the reservation of a hotel room.
—
So, in that sense, it takes the Identity interoperability at a higher level of abstraction. Which makes it much more ‘doable’ since you can use many different systems/ technologies and yet they can talk at a higher level of federated identity(the option being to force everyone to come to the same Identity standard first) which is the classic standardization problem.

So, I do agree that semantic interoperability seems to be a good direction(and by that I mean practical approach). The challenge is to convey the idea to the wider people. I will have a look at the links you mention kind rgds Ajit

]]> By: Steve Mutkoski http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-159 Steve Mutkoski Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:18:31 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-159 Mattias and Ajit-No doubt about it, semantic interoperability presents some huge challenges. My point was not that governments could turn to semantic interoperability and solve all problems overnight, but rather that it was time to start tackling the problem, even if that meant only a partial solution. I'm a big proponent of the idea that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. On the topic of semantic interoperability specifically, I was excited to see the work here at ICEGOV2009 that I mentioned earlier. It was not just the work itself, but rather the overall framework or approach, that took into account that we would never have perfect agreement about semantics but that capturing all semantic information we could was far better than where we are today.By organizational interoperability, and I must confess I am not a fan of that term, I mean a whole range of thngs, from business process re-engineering (such as making sure you don't just "digitize" a former "bricks and mortar" government process) to working to align government agencies priorities so that the people in these agencies interoperate. There is some hanging fruit in this area, so while I can see why policy makers resist the urge to go down the path toward tackling semantic interoperability issues, I don't necessarily feel that way about the lack of taking on organizational interoperability issues. Mattias and Ajit-No doubt about it, semantic interoperability presents some huge challenges. My point was not that governments could turn to semantic interoperability and solve all problems overnight, but rather that it was time to start tackling the problem, even if that meant only a partial solution. I’m a big proponent of the idea that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. On the topic of semantic interoperability specifically, I was excited to see the work here at ICEGOV2009 that I mentioned earlier. It was not just the work itself, but rather the overall framework or approach, that took into account that we would never have perfect agreement about semantics but that capturing all semantic information we could was far better than where we are today.By organizational interoperability, and I must confess I am not a fan of that term, I mean a whole range of thngs, from business process re-engineering (such as making sure you don’t just “digitize” a former “bricks and mortar” government process) to working to align government agencies priorities so that the people in these agencies interoperate. There is some hanging fruit in this area, so while I can see why policy makers resist the urge to go down the path toward tackling semantic interoperability issues, I don’t necessarily feel that way about the lack of taking on organizational interoperability issues.

]]> By: Ajit Jaokar http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-155 Ajit Jaokar Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:10:57 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-155 Steve,<br/>Good post and also very insightful comment .. I totally agree on the concept of 'moving up the stack' and 'semantic interoperability' - but my concern is - governments may not get these ideas(Mattias provides some good examples with the EU situation whihc is culturally and linguistically complex)<br/><br/>There is also another hurdle to overcome .. take the case of the 'semantic web' - which has had its proponents .. but so far has shown limited uptake .. the problem is a 'chicken and egg' situation i.e. who will do the semantics for the semantic web? But I think the idea of semantic interoperability needs to be explored more and it is more 'doable' since it does not need to be perfect before it can be useful - which is its greatest benefit ie start organically and evolve. I shall explore it in greater detail soon kind rgds Ajit Steve,
Good post and also very insightful comment .. I totally agree on the concept of ‘moving up the stack’ and ‘semantic interoperability’ – but my concern is – governments may not get these ideas(Mattias provides some good examples with the EU situation whihc is culturally and linguistically complex)

There is also another hurdle to overcome .. take the case of the ‘semantic web’ – which has had its proponents .. but so far has shown limited uptake .. the problem is a ‘chicken and egg’ situation i.e. who will do the semantics for the semantic web? But I think the idea of semantic interoperability needs to be explored more and it is more ‘doable’ since it does not need to be perfect before it can be useful – which is its greatest benefit ie start organically and evolve. I shall explore it in greater detail soon kind rgds Ajit

]]> By: Mattias Ganslandt http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Mattias Ganslandt Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:37:06 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-150 Steve, I agree that evolution of eGov services require more than technical interoperability. Semantic interoperability presents a particular challenge. This is perhaps not so surprising. Meaning is typically associated with values. Semantic interoperability is accordingly more than just a matter of coordination. As any European could tell you, there are few issues more sensitive than language. Recall that despite an extremely heavy administrative burden associated with translation services (500+ language combinations) and English as a lingua franca de facto, the European Union has failed to agree on a reform in this area. I would not underestimate the challenges associated with deeper interoperability. However, I do agree that it is an area worth focusing on. I´m not sure I see the same value in "organizational interoperability" with the associated risks of conformity. /Mattias<br/> Steve, I agree that evolution of eGov services require more than technical interoperability. Semantic interoperability presents a particular challenge. This is perhaps not so surprising. Meaning is typically associated with values. Semantic interoperability is accordingly more than just a matter of coordination. As any European could tell you, there are few issues more sensitive than language. Recall that despite an extremely heavy administrative burden associated with translation services (500+ language combinations) and English as a lingua franca de facto, the European Union has failed to agree on a reform in this area. I would not underestimate the challenges associated with deeper interoperability. However, I do agree that it is an area worth focusing on. I´m not sure I see the same value in “organizational interoperability” with the associated risks of conformity. /Mattias

]]> By: Steve Mutkoski http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-149 Steve Mutkoski Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:18:10 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-149 NiklasThanks for the post and the interesting questions. I’m having some challenges posting so bear with me if this doesn’t all appear at once!In an earlier draft of my post (which was simply too long), I did point out how a number of countries had incorporated significant semantic and organizational interoperability issues into their eGIFs (indeed the European Interoperability Framework is a good example of this). So I wouldn’t say “much” of the work done by policymakers has been for naught, just that today, looking only at the technical layer isn’t going to advance the state of eGovernment all that much. I would also say that perhaps there is something in these lists that might be useful. It’s probably not the interconnection standards that everyone agrees on (simply document what everyone is already using doesn’t seem like a great use of resources to me) but perhaps with more analysis of this data, some recalibrated standards list could serve some role. That is one of the issues I am keen to discuss more.I’m at ICEGOV2009 in Bogota, Columbia this week where there are an impressive group of policymakers, academics and practitioners on hand and there have been a number of presentations that touch on the need for policy makers to “move up the stack” and look more at semantic and organizational issues. You use the term “crowd pleasing” and others here at the conference have used the term “security blanket,” but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. The reality is that addressing technical issues might well seem like the easiest thing to do, especially when you start looking at the higher level challenges. Jim Davies, Jeremy Gibbons and Steve Harris from Oxford gave a brilliant presentation on models for approaching semantic interoperability challenges. They started out by saying the main way that governments have tried to solve semantic challenges is to get agreement on a common set of meanings, but they noted that is impossible for all but the smallest of communities. Their suggested approach, gather as much semantic meaning as you can when you gather data, isn’t the kind of easy solution a policymaker might want to hear, but it is probably the right path (it is certainly a better option than what is often done now, collect data without any hint of semantic meaning). Matthias Finger from Ecole Polytechnique Lausanne also gave a provocative talk on “government’s role in eGovernment” going forward. One of his many interesting points was that a huge amount of public sector reform is still needed and that technology will not really drive that reform (and I may be taking liberties here, but he seemed to imply that discussions about technology were just going to get in the way of the real reform discussions that need to happen). On your last question about differences, I have also heard many of the presenters (as well as audience members) comment that there probably isn’t a one size fits all approach to eGovernment. While I think that is generally true, there is nothing wrong with borrowing what has succeeded elsewhere if it seems appropriate for your country. But there is also the cautionary tale of the “8µ Law” standard, which was was a low light imagery standard proposed by the UK Defence Research Agency. As far as I know, this proposed standard was never ratified and it doesn’t seem to have been a meaningful aspect of procurement in the UK, yet it wound up in the mix in a number of countries. NiklasThanks for the post and the interesting questions. I’m having some challenges posting so bear with me if this doesn’t all appear at once!In an earlier draft of my post (which was simply too long), I did point out how a number of countries had incorporated significant semantic and organizational interoperability issues into their eGIFs (indeed the European Interoperability Framework is a good example of this). So I wouldn’t say “much” of the work done by policymakers has been for naught, just that today, looking only at the technical layer isn’t going to advance the state of eGovernment all that much. I would also say that perhaps there is something in these lists that might be useful. It’s probably not the interconnection standards that everyone agrees on (simply document what everyone is already using doesn’t seem like a great use of resources to me) but perhaps with more analysis of this data, some recalibrated standards list could serve some role. That is one of the issues I am keen to discuss more.I’m at ICEGOV2009 in Bogota, Columbia this week where there are an impressive group of policymakers, academics and practitioners on hand and there have been a number of presentations that touch on the need for policy makers to “move up the stack” and look more at semantic and organizational issues. You use the term “crowd pleasing” and others here at the conference have used the term “security blanket,” but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. The reality is that addressing technical issues might well seem like the easiest thing to do, especially when you start looking at the higher level challenges. Jim Davies, Jeremy Gibbons and Steve Harris from Oxford gave a brilliant presentation on models for approaching semantic interoperability challenges. They started out by saying the main way that governments have tried to solve semantic challenges is to get agreement on a common set of meanings, but they noted that is impossible for all but the smallest of communities. Their suggested approach, gather as much semantic meaning as you can when you gather data, isn’t the kind of easy solution a policymaker might want to hear, but it is probably the right path (it is certainly a better option than what is often done now, collect data without any hint of semantic meaning). Matthias Finger from Ecole Polytechnique Lausanne also gave a provocative talk on “government’s role in eGovernment” going forward. One of his many interesting points was that a huge amount of public sector reform is still needed and that technology will not really drive that reform (and I may be taking liberties here, but he seemed to imply that discussions about technology were just going to get in the way of the real reform discussions that need to happen). On your last question about differences, I have also heard many of the presenters (as well as audience members) comment that there probably isn’t a one size fits all approach to eGovernment. While I think that is generally true, there is nothing wrong with borrowing what has succeeded elsewhere if it seems appropriate for your country. But there is also the cautionary tale of the “8µ Law” standard, which was was a low light imagery standard proposed by the UK Defence Research Agency. As far as I know, this proposed standard was never ratified and it doesn’t seem to have been a meaningful aspect of procurement in the UK, yet it wound up in the mix in a number of countries.

]]> By: Chris Parker http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-138 Chris Parker Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:06:44 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-138 Steve: great piece of research. It validates something I've become increasingly concerned about - the fact that government after government seems intent on replicating an approach to interoperability which was developed at the start of this decade and has little bearing on the needs of the next. And I have to put my hand up for a share of the blame - I led the team which developed the UK's eGIF!eGIF was an important piece of work, and I think was rightly influential. But there are two important reasons why governments shouldn't keep perpetuating that approach. First, it was geared to address a set of technical problems which have largely been solved by the market now. For example, it was a genuine and influential decision when eGIF was first formulated to choose XML as the standard for data exchange. Nowadays, that is just a non-decision. Second, eGIF focused largely on technical and data issues. But the largest barriers to genuinely citizen-centric interoperable services are organisational ones. That's why its important that the European IF is focusing on political, legal, organisational and semantic interoperability as well as the technical layer.That said, it is far easier to talk about "organisational interoperability" than it is to make it a living, breathing reality. Having worked on e-service transformation in over 35 countries now, I'm convinced we need to raise our sights on the sorts of standards and policies which can help governments deliver real benefits from ICT. As a contribution to the debate, my company has just published a short white paper mapping out what we think is needed. It's called "Beyond Interoperability: a new policy framework for eGovernment", and is available in the White Papers section of our website at www.cstransform.com . I'd be grateful for feedback on the paper from you and other forum participants. Steve: great piece of research. It validates something I’ve become increasingly concerned about – the fact that government after government seems intent on replicating an approach to interoperability which was developed at the start of this decade and has little bearing on the needs of the next. And I have to put my hand up for a share of the blame – I led the team which developed the UK’s eGIF!eGIF was an important piece of work, and I think was rightly influential. But there are two important reasons why governments shouldn’t keep perpetuating that approach. First, it was geared to address a set of technical problems which have largely been solved by the market now. For example, it was a genuine and influential decision when eGIF was first formulated to choose XML as the standard for data exchange. Nowadays, that is just a non-decision. Second, eGIF focused largely on technical and data issues. But the largest barriers to genuinely citizen-centric interoperable services are organisational ones. That’s why its important that the European IF is focusing on political, legal, organisational and semantic interoperability as well as the technical layer.That said, it is far easier to talk about “organisational interoperability” than it is to make it a living, breathing reality. Having worked on e-service transformation in over 35 countries now, I’m convinced we need to raise our sights on the sorts of standards and policies which can help governments deliver real benefits from ICT. As a contribution to the debate, my company has just published a short white paper mapping out what we think is needed. It’s called “Beyond Interoperability: a new policy framework for eGovernment”, and is available in the White Papers section of our website at http://www.cstransform.com . I’d be grateful for feedback on the paper from you and other forum participants.

]]> By: Niklas Lindblom http://www.talkstandards.com/egovernment-interoperability-frameworks-a-survey-of-the-past-ten-years/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Niklas Lindblom Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:42:10 +0000 http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=2188#comment-132 Steve,<br/>I read your post with great interest.Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are basically saying is that much of the work recently done by eGov policy makers have not been pushing very much forward. In fact, it has rather cemented existing technologies and solutions. So is it all just crowd pleasing or has anything substantial been established? I would hope that by now, at least a lot of the heavy foot work have been done but I appreciate the giant task that is ahead. <br/>In your opinion, what shape are current eGIFs in generally? Are there any fundamental differences to be found between different countries' policies and if so, are there any simple explanation for that? Steve,
I read your post with great interest.Correct me if I’m wrong but what you are basically saying is that much of the work recently done by eGov policy makers have not been pushing very much forward. In fact, it has rather cemented existing technologies and solutions. So is it all just crowd pleasing or has anything substantial been established? I would hope that by now, at least a lot of the heavy foot work have been done but I appreciate the giant task that is ahead.
In your opinion, what shape are current eGIFs in generally? Are there any fundamental differences to be found between different countries’ policies and if so, are there any simple explanation for that?

]]>