Table of contents
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,053
On Slideshare
1,053
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EGOVERNMENT INTEROPERABILITY WORKSHOP BRUSSELS 18 MARCH 2003 TH eGovernment interoperability in the 2005-2010 horizon Addressing the future IST RTD WORKING DOCUMENT Workshop report Information Society Technologies eGovernment 8/4/2003 -1-
  • 2. Table of contents Table of contents....................................................................................................................2 Objectives...............................................................................................................................3 Executive summary................................................................................................................3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................5 Problem statement................................................................................................................................5 Major initiatives worldwide.................................................................................................................6 Key points emerging from the workshop.............................................................................................7 Future research areas to be undertaken by e-government IST...........................................................10 Annex I: Agenda of the workshop......................................................................................12 Annex II: summary of the presentations............................................................................15 State of play and Future directions: eGovernment and eBusiness interoperability initiatives...........15 eGovernment IST: Key RTD directions. The research for 2005-2010. New directions and building on current work..................................................................................................................................15 Annex III: List of participants............................................................................................19 Dr. Luis Guijarro, Rapporteur -2-
  • 3. Objectives RTD on interoperability applied to eGovernment plays a central role to move away from eGovernment islands towards Networked Governments which will enable the virtual integration of the different layers of public administrations (local, regional, national, EU and worldwide) as well as citizens, business and civil society. The objective of the workshop was to start brainstorming about future research activities on eGovernment Interoperability which could be undertaken in the Information Society Technologies (IST) priority during the 2005-2010 period and which could be included as research areas in future IST Workprogrammes. Forthcoming workshops will further explore, focus and detail the most important research topics to be addressed. Executive summary In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned above, a first workshop on e- Government Interoperability was organised by the European Commission (e- Government and e-Business IST Units) in co-operation with the e-Forum project. The Agenda is attached in Annex I. The participants are listed on the Annex III, and they represent major solution providers, public agencies and administrations, research institutions and standardization bodies which are relevant for e-Government in Europe. The workshop was structured in two sessions. The first session was titled “State of play and future directions: eGovernment and eBusiness interoperability initiatives” and was focused on the analysis of current interoperability initiatives in Public Administrations (UK, France, European Commission and USA) and the Standard Bodies (W3C). This analysis provided the current state of the art in the e-Government-related research areas. The second session, which was titled “eGovernment IST: Key RTD directions. The research for 2005-2010. New directions and building on current work”, was aimed at discussing in a brainstorm the situation envisioned for e-Government deployment at the mid-term (2005) and the research and technological development that will speed the e-Government deployment at long-term (2010). The framework of the Workshop was provided by Dr. Luis Guijarro, which acted also as the Rapporteur of the Workshop. This framework placed the e- Government initiatives both at the implementation level and at the research level in one of two stages: 1. The first stage in e-Government interoperability deals with the enabling of the information exchange between distributed applications in and between Administrations, which may be achieved through different technologies, such as web, web services, metadata, ontologies, security and so on. 2. The second stage, however, deals with non-technical issues, since the main focus is placed upon process reengineering and enterprise architecture construction, so that mainly engineering methodologies rather than -3-
  • 4. technologies are the key: enterprise modelling languages, enterprise architecture frameworks, model-based software engineering, and so on. Different issues were tackled within the above framework, and finally there was an agreement on the following key issues which will drive successfully the e- government deployment: 1. First of all, all participants regarded that no-technical issues, such as those identified within the enterprise architecture issue, but also cultural and legal issues, are envisioned as higher barriers to e-government deployment than pure technical issues. 2. Secondly, semantics interoperability was identified as the challenge for researchers, standards bodies and public administrations. 3. Thirdly, applications interoperability was regarded as an important but feasible goal at mid-term. -4-
  • 5. Conclusions Problem statement During late 90s, most Administrations in OECD countries have released their e- government strategies. Each e-government strategy is supported by its own framework policies. One of such policies is the interoperability framework. The interoperability framework aims at providing the basic standards that all the agencies which are relevant for the e-government strategy implementation should adopt. This interoperability framework would allow, at least, the interoperability between information systems from different agencies in order to provide services to the citizen and to the business in an integrated way. In the following section, according to the analysis presented by the Rapporteur of the workshop, the major initiatives in interoperability frameworks development are presented. The initiatives are managed by the Office of the e-Envoy in the UK, the former ATICA in France, the IDA Program in the European Commission and the Federal CIO Council in the USA. Based on his analysis, the above framework for discussion at the workshop was provided. The interoperability in e-government is regarded as a major issue to be addressed by all e-government agencies. In the first stage of this awareness, interoperability is regarded as an issue at the application level, that is, interoperability is agreed to be understood as the “ability to exchange functionality and interpretable data between to software entities” (Mowbray, 1995, The essential CORBA). If so, the approaches of each one of the four e-gov agencies agree on mandating a full set of standards, which address those areas that are relevant to the interoperability, according to the definition above. Such areas are, for instance, interconnection, data integration, content management metadata, telecommunication network access, workflow management, group working, security, document archiving, and so on. In our opinion, this first stage is essential for e-government implementation success, and it will enable the seamless information flow between institutions. However, it will not be enough for enabling the sort of interoperability required for a true seamless service delivery to citizens and business, which is the vision of the e-government strategies. There is a need, therefore, for a second stage in interoperability which deals with the building of an enterprise architecture. Enterprise architecture refers to a comprehensive description of all the key elements and relationships that make up an organization. There are many different approaches to describing the elements of an enterprise architecture. One approach that has grown in popularity in the past few years is based on a framework developed by John Zachman in 1987. Enterprise architecture aims to align the business processes and goals of an enterprise and the applications and systems that build up its technical infrastructure. Not all the agencies under study have addressed this second stage, and when having done it, its achievement degree is not homogeneous. Some agencies have only identified that business requirement are an issue to address, whereas others have already succeed in providing the models and tools for the description of the enterprise, and in founding the technical architecture in this description. -5-
  • 6. Major initiatives worldwide These are four of the major initiatives being carried out by e-government agencies in the interoperability arena. The Office of the e-Envoy in the UK have based its technical guidance in the e- Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF), which was issued in 2000, and published its version 5.0draft in February 2003. e-GIF mandates sets of specifications and policies for joined-up and web enabled government. e-GIF is one of the framework policies and has been included in the e-Services Development Framework (e-SDF). The e-SDF is a framework for guiding and supporting the development process of e-services in e-government. Requirements, design and implementation are the three phases of the development process, and the e-SDF provides sets of reusable elements (patterns, components, and resources) for improving the consistency and reducing costs in the development at the different phases, and a High Level Architecture, which provides a single set of top-level specifications and standards to be used for developing government e-Services. The High Level Architecture is composed of: • The Government Common Information Model (GCIM), which is a high level model of business activities. Its focus is explicitly on the specification of interoperability requirements. • The Government Data Standards Catalogue (GDSC), which describes the data elements and data types which are referred to in both GCIM and CMRM. • The Government Message Reference Model (GMRM), which is a high-level reference model of information that is exchanged between applications. • And the e-GIF, which provides the supporting guidelines and technical specifications for implementation The High Level Architecture is actually an Enterprise Architecture Framework. The French ADAE (Agence pour le Développement de l'Administration Électronique), formerly known as ATICA, have recently published its second version of Le Cadre Commun d’Intéroperabilité (CCRv2draft, February 2003). CCR comprises the recommendations for strengthening public electronic systems coherence and for enabling multi-agency electronic service delivery. CCR is still focused on the specification of sets of standards for guiding the implementation of interoperable applications for the provision of e-gov services, but it has not provided yet a framework for enterprise architecture description. The European Commission Enterprise DG, through the Interchange of Data between Administration (IDA) Program, has issued its Architecture Guidelines (version 6.1, June 2002), as a supporting tool for the Decision of the European Parliament and the Council 1720/1999/EC “Interoperability and access to Trans-European Networks for the electronic Interchange of Data between Administrations”. These guidelines provide concepts and reference for optimum interoperability between European Institutions, European Agencies, and Administrations in member States. Apart from issuing sets of relevant standards for each service profile, IDA regards two dimensions for guiding the implementation of interoperable e-services: the business requirements, involving the definition of a suitable implementation approach, and the security management, involving a security policy that meets the security requirements and a set of security mechanisms that enforce the policy on the trans-European network. -6-
  • 7. Finally, the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, in the USA, issued the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) in September 1999, and published its second version of the E-Gov Enterprise Architecture Guidance in July 2002, for guiding the E-Gov initiatives financed by the President’s Office. Following a different approach from the other initiatives, the CIO Council mandates one target enterprise architecture for Presidential E-Gov initiatives, but selects the applicable standards only for consideration in those initiatives. The CIO Council adopts the FEAF 4-layer structure as the framework for E-Gov initiatives, which includes: • Business architecture, which identifies the functions, process, organization, and information flow for accomplishing the mission of the organization, and which includes the FEA Business Reference Model, in terms of which every E-Gov initiative should define their Business Architecture • Data architecture, which defines the major types of data needed to support the business, its meaning, and its form. • Application architecture, which defines the applications and supporting capabilities to effectively manage the data and information needed to support business objectives. • Technology architecture, which defines the enabling hardware, software, and their physical locations to support the business applications/data and functions. Key points emerging from the workshop Definitions In order to provide a baseline for discussion, there was an agreement on the different levels of interoperability, from the more concrete issues to the more abstract ones. A tentative terminology may be, therefore, the following one: • Application interoperability, which includes the communications issues, both at the telecommunications network access level and at the network interconnection level; and the distributed applications issues, regarding the remote procedure call/ method invocation mechanisms and the public interface exportation/binding. • Semantics interoperability, which includes both the data interpretation, by means of XML schemas, and the knowledge representation and exploitation, by means of ontologies and agents • Enterprise architecture, which deals with business process modelling inside the organizations and among partners organizations, and with methodologies and tools for aligning the organization goals with the technical architecture which support the E-Gov initiatives Key issues These key issues have adopted the format of an enumeration of issues to be addressed in the 2005-2010 horizon, so as to improve the interoperability in the e-Government arena and to remove the existing interoperability barriers to an effective e-Government deployment. -7-
  • 8. The key issues are classified according to the perspective of each one of the stakeholders that has been identified around the issue of interoperability. The stakeholders are: • Public Administrations • Citizens and Business • Researchers • Standards Bodies • Solution Providers On the other hand, mid-term and long-term issues have been identified, where mid-term refers to a 2-year period, and long-term means year 2010. Public Administrations Mid-term issues • Application interoperability is still to be achieved, and this issue is receiving the major effort in current e-Gov pilots around Europe. • Semantics interoperability is being addressed, and it is regarded as one major issues by the most advanced agencies in charge of e-Government implementation in Europe. Long-term issues • The modelling of the different processes involved in the workflow of the Administration is being perceived as crucial, since this should be the first step prior to the design of e-services at the Administration. • Furthermore, cultural, legal, organizational issues are still to be addressed but perceived as key ones. Actually, the lack of awareness of these issues is perceived a major barrier to the e-Government deployment inside the institutions. Anyway, each Administration, depending on the level it is fulfilling its commitments, either at National, Regional or Local levels, have different priorities in e-Government deployment. Citizens and Business Mid-term issues • Citizens aims at accessing e-government services which provide device independence, which is a challenge for the integration of different user interface technologies. • Businesses expect that every relevant service delivery to companies will be conducted by electronic means Long-term issues • Application and semantics interoperability will enhance the effectiveness of the B2G-related interactions Researchers Mid-term issues • Application interoperability through Web Services is to be solved, although further research are still to be performed as real systems are implemented for e- Government. Long-term issues -8-
  • 9. • Ontologies will allow enhanced interoperability. This issue, however, will probably face serious challenges when trying to be deployed at large scale in the Web. • When application and semantic interoperability is achieved, research efforts might be steered towards automating the transition from enterprise models to interoperable technology specific platforms that provides e-Government solutions. Standard Bodies Mid-term issues • Web and Web Services standards are still to be completed. For instance, XML transformation (XSLT), Web Services choreography (WSCI vs. BPEL4WS) are still on-going work in W3C. • Security is an issue, which is perceived as a barrier when pursuing to achieve true applications interoperability. • Semantic Web will eventually reach a mature status, which will allow the Web to benefit from the research on ontology. • Enterprise modelling languages will be unified, and model interchange between organization may speed the coordination of workflows in different Administrations. Long-term issues • Standard bodies, mainly the consortia, are expected to provide appropriate frameworks for assisting the technological progress and for building the consensus among the different actors involved in technology development. Solution Providers Mid-term issues • Solution providers are struggling to build truly composable services for e- services provision at the different Administrations. Long-term issues • They will assist Public Administrations in building their ontologies, once these Administrations perceive the benefits of such endeavour. • In the end, e-Government pattern development by solution providers will surely speed the e-Gov deployment at different levels of Public Administration, and reduce the associated cost of such implementations. -9-
  • 10. Future research areas to be undertaken by e-government IST Interoperability IST Research IST Research issue Mid- Long- Layer Area Term term Application Web W3C XSLT X interoperability Web Services Choreography X Security OASIS XML signature X Open source X software Semantic Semantic Web Ontology interoperability W3C OWL X Reconciliation methods Semantic Web W3C WSDL -RDF mapping X Services Metadata IST eGOV GovML e-Envoy e-GMS X Pan-European Standardization Knowledge X management Enterprise Process BPMI BPML, BPEL4WS, ISO Architecture modelling PSL X Process reengineering Workflow X management Requirements Pan-European Services X Frameworks FEAF, e-Envoy e-SDF, system X engineering Development Model-to-platforms: OMG MDA X automation Environment Legislation Pan-European rules X Standardization Standardization process and X actors Notes: Application interoperability Web technologies, mainly XML ones, will reach a mature status, such as W3C XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language, http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/). Web Services-related research is to address the issue of choreographing business processes that use different Web services specifications, whereby letting the processes work together. Security is to be an important issue, and web-relevant work is underway in OASIS XML signature. Finally, open source software is a new entrant which may alter the principles of interoperability inside and between administrations. Semantic interoperability The W3C Semantic Web initiative (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/) has already produced the OWL (Web Ontology Language). Moreover, reconciliation methods based on reference ontologies will allow semantic interoperability between legacy proprietary - 10 -
  • 11. enterprise information systems. There are some initiatives in researching on convergence between Web Services and Semantic Web, such as the planned W3C Semantic Web Services interest group, and the mapping of WSDL (WS Description Language) and RDF (Resource Description Framework). There is also an effort being developed at standardizing metadata in e-government, such as the GovML (e-Gov Markup Language) produced at the FP5-IST eGOV Project, and the e-Envoy e-GMS (e- Gov Metadata Standard). Finally, Pan-European Standardization in service delivery is envisioned as an item for research that will easy the semantic interoperability. Knowledge management is regarded as aiding tool for allowing the semantic interoperability. Enterprise architecture Firstly, process modelling at e-government through the use of the appropriate language is being achieved, such as BPMI BPML (Business Process Modelling Language), BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services), and ISO PSL (Process Specification Language). Other issues to tackle are: process reengineering at the administration; workflow management inside and between administration; requirements engineering in process and service specification; specification of pan- European Services; use of frameworks for architecting, such as the current initiatives USA FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework) and e-Envoy e-SDF (e- Services Development Framework). System engineering and software engineering practices will contribute significantly to speed e-government deployment. Finally, it is envisioned that in the long-term development automation will shorten the model-to- platforms transitions, such as the current initiative OMG MDA (Model-driven Architecture, http://www.omg.org/mda) Environment Finally, legal and normative aspects should be addressed in order to provide pan- European rules for e-government service delivery. On the other hand, standardization processes and actors might be redesigned in order to streamline their operation and to assure the standard adoption by the industry. - 11 -
  • 12. Annex I: Agenda of the workshop EUROPEAN COMMISSION Information Society Directorate-General Components and subsystems. Applications eGovernment EGOVERNMENT INTEROPERABILITY WORKSHOP1 eGovernment interoperability in the 2005-2010 horizon and eBusiness experiences Brussels 18 March 2003 at Avenue de Beaulieu, 33 BU33 00/54 9:45 Registration starts 1 Organised in co-operation with eForum and the eBusiness IST unit. The workshop is unable to cover any travel costs or others - 12 -
  • 13. A 10:00-10:15 Welcome and objectives A. Bradier, Head of Unit eGovernment IST State of play and Future directions: eGovernment and eBusiness interoperability initiatives. B.1 10:15-10:45 World-wide initiatives and future L. Guijarro, Professor U. Politecnica research directions in Valencia eGovernment interoperability B.2 10:45-11:15 Interoperability activities and M. Cumming, Cabinet Office, Office possible future developments in of the e-Envoy the UK. Case study. 11:15-11:30 Coffee break B.3 11:30-12:30 The role of Web Services and I. Herman, Head of offices W3C future evolution foreseen by W3C 12:30-13:45 Lunch break eGovernment IST: Key RTD directions The research for 2005-2010. New directions and building on current work. C.1 13:45-14:05 eForum perspective and initiatives I. Cava, Chair eForum Working Group, Valencian Government C.2 14:05-14:20 IDA interoperability framework C. Devillers, IDA, DG Enterprise C.3 14:20-14:45 IDEAS roadmap for eBusiness A. Zwegers, Baan Interoperability C.4 14:45-16:30 Future research directions and − M. Missikoff, Lab for Enterprise relevant experiences to build on Knowledge and Systems, IASI- followed by an open discussion CNR − J. Millard, Danish Technological Institute − T. Tambouris, Archetypon S.A. − J-P. Trieau, Aquitaine Europe Communication − A. Pasic, SchlumbergerSema − Prof. K. Tarabanis, Informatics & Telematics Institute Centre of Research and Technology - 13 -
  • 14. − D. Werth, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence 16:30-16:45 Coffee break C.5 16:45-17:00 Conclusions L. Guijarro, U. P. V. - 14 -
  • 15. Annex II: summary of the presentations State of play and Future directions: eGovernment and eBusiness interoperability initiatives. Interoperability activities and possible future developments in the UK. Case study. M. Cumming, Cabinet Office, Office of the e-Envoy The e-GIF (UK e-Government Interoperability Framework) has been highly successful, both in the UK and as a model for interoperability elsewhere. The e-GIF is a policy driven initiative, with ministerial support and with outcomes based on benefits to citizens, rather than a technology driven project. From the outset its development has involved wide consultation with the public and private sectors, and these factors have contributed greatly to its success. Version five is available for public consultation until 31 March 2003, at www.govtalk.gov.uk The role of Web Services and future evolution foreseen by W3C I. Herman, Head of offices W3C W3C's technical work is centred around two main principles: 1) Web technologies must be interoperable and 2) the Web is for Everybody. The full palette of W3C core technologies, including XML Schemas, XSLT, XPath, etc, as well as the various User Interface (SVG, XHTML, etc) and machine-to-machine communication technologies (Web Services, Semantic Web) reflect this vision. Internationalization, Web Accessibility, or Device Independence concerns also permeate all the work of W3C. More specifically on Web Services and the Semantic Web: these are not conflicting technologies but rather two sides of the same coin. Whereas web services provide machine-to-machine communication through active, functional entities (and based on Web Technologies), the Semantic Web provide passive, data-based information that other resources can exploit. The synergy effect of the two technologies is reinforced by several initiatives at the W3C (participation in the SWAD project, Semantic Web Services interest group, etc.) eGovernment IST: Key RTD directions. The research for 2005-2010. New directions and building on current work. eForum perspective and initiatives I. Cava, Chair eForum Working Group, Valencian Government The E-Forum Association (http://www.eu-forum.org) is dedicated to defining the future needs of eGovernment in Europe. It brings the private and public sectors together to promote excellence. For members, it is a network for exchange of ideas, a gateway to the latest eGovernment information, and a showcase for the solutions that will shape eGovernment over the next ten to fifteen years. Shared Infrastructures Working Group - 15 -
  • 16. is chaired by the Regional Government of Valencia (Spain) and its member comes from different types of organizations both public and private. Besides this, academic institutions such as the Technical University of Valencia carried out a methodological work to define a coherent framework for the conclusions. The member agreed that the result of the study process of the Shared Infrastructure WG should be provide some useful and long term recommendations to the Public Administration in order to guarantee the interoperability and availability of the shared infrastructures that support both government to government (G2G) and government to citizen or business initiatives (G2C/B). IDA interoperability framework C. Devillers, IDA, DG Enterprise IDA deals with the development of telematic networks in specific policy areas; it provides as well “horizontal” actions to ensure interoperability and make economy of scale (e.g. by using generic services and common tools). In this context of horizontal actions, the IDA InterOp Framework will complement existing national Interoperability Frameworks by providing a framework for the achievement of interoperable pan-European government e-services. It will consider national differences in language, legislation, procedures and data structures in addition to the technical issues. First release of the framework is expected by June 2003. IDEAS roadmap for eBusiness Interoperability A. Zwegers, Baan Dr. Zwegers introduced the IDEAS project which aims to deliver a roadmap for eBusiness Interoperability. The project focuses on enterprise modelling, ontology, and architectures and platforms. Synchronisation between IDEAS and possible subsequent FP6 projects on the one hand, and eGovernment Interoperability initiatives on the other hand is greatly welcomed. Round table discussion. Future research directions and relevant experiences to build on followed by an open discussion. M. Missikoff, Lab for Enterprise Knowledge and Systems, IASI-CNR The goal of Interoperability in eGovernement (but similarly in eBusiness) is to enhance the cooperation of organisations by means of ICT solutions. A definition of Interoperability is: the ability of different systems to have the same interpretation (e.g., expected induced behaviour) of a message, despite their different systems of symbols (i.e., their information structure and coding). This is true for both social and technological systems. At a technological level, the interconnection solutions, that allow computers (and software applications) to exchange messages, are already available and satisfactory. What still missing, and therefore should be addressed by RTD, are the solutions to interpret the semantics of exchanged messages and the corresponding capacity of organisations to actually cooperate. The former can be achieved with ontology-based - 16 -
  • 17. solutions, the latter must be addressed on the ground of organisational theory. J. Millard, Danish Technological Institute Although eGovernment can learn a lot from eBusiness, it should not copy wholesale and the learning process should go both ways. For example, government can learn from business about applying BPR for interoperability in eGovernment, and business can learn from government about corporate social responsibility which is relevant for interoperability in terms of who are the beneficiaries, who is involved and who controls. Ultimately, government is not the same as business as governments cannot choose their customers and because the users of government services take on a variety of roles, including as voters, tax payers as well as consumers. Thus, a specific Government- Process-Reengineering approach to interoperability should be sought rather than one which simply transposes BPR onto government. T. Tambouris, Archetypon S.A. Interoperability is an important and non-trivial parameter of e-government. Current research work in e-government (e.g. the IST eGOV project) has only achieved to reveal the importance of interoperability rather than to provide solid solutions. Interoperability is a multi-disciplinary field with technical, organisation, legal, human and societal aspects. Thus, a holistic approach and a roadmap are needed, which at the same time will ensure consensus also by standardisation. Research and Technological development is required in a number of areas including system and software development methodologies, data and metadata vocabularies, and interoperable e-government platforms and applications based on open architectures and standards. J-P. Trieau, Aquitaine Europe Communication For regional decisions-makers, elected representatives or civil servants, interoperability cannot be regarded as mere technical issue, but rather how they see their own data production and distribution throughout secured architecture. In that context and in the perspective of the coming calls (6th FP), proposers should gear their projects toward the following type of objectives: Organisation and tools aiming at reducing the digital gap; Central Public Administrations: Create the conditions for the correct migration of existing “old” formats onto up-to-date meta- encapsulated information containers; Local and Regional Authorities: Support projects encouraging the use Knowledge Management, Natural Language, Work Flow and Cross Organisation Still, transversal actions remain necessary: Work related to ontology and semantic must be continued; Social and legal researches must be reinforced in the fields of ownership, public vs. private data, in accordance with the European and Members States regulations. A. Pasic, SchlumbergerSema Regarding the integration and the transaction of cross-organisational eGovernment services, it seems that tailor made solutions for applicative co-operation follow different scenarios in the member states, although some of these countries base their strategies on (national) standards and architectures for eGovernment applications. Besides technical interoperability (middleware, common application services...) that can help in service integration, but with additional effort requested, there is an opportunity to transform EGovernment services in a way that the seamless integration (no system integration effort needed) becomes possible. The promising research areas for this "dynamic" and seamless service compositions, personalised for each citizen, could be domain independent and langauge neutral ontologies. - 17 -
  • 18. Based on our previous FP5 experiences (Impulse, Smart-EC, MkBeem, E-Court, Liquid...) with service composition/decomposition, we believe that these types of ontologies are extremely complex to build and will not be available for the market until 2010. Therefore, a stepwise solution and introduction of less ambitious ontology types and semantic web services is suggested for the short term RTD. In the area of distributed process execution, a possible convergence of GRID, Mobile agents and web services could be investigated. Prof. K. Tarabanis, Informatics & Telematics Institute Centre of Research and Technology […] D. Werth, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Interoperability will be the enabler for the future development in eGovernment. Various new and innovative concepts and realizations require a capable and effective interoperational infrastructure of European public administrations (EPAs), including their customers, namely Citizens and Enterprises. The transition from the current paradigm of highly fragmented national isolated applications and islands of functionality, to a situation promoting consolidation to an integrated, collaborative and secure architecture is of substantial matter. The major demand of EPAs is to operationally establish and use interconnections to others. Therefore we need a special holistic framework that makes EPA's heterogeneity manageable and supportable as well as that ensures successful realizations within various public administrations. Only targeting all aspects together reveals the optimal synergy effects and cohesion between the different components to ensure a seamless and interlocking collaboration. The interoperability solution has to be actively promoted and widely deployed in order to accomplish a real European impact and to make the interoperability sustainable. Interoperability is only the instrument, not the objective. By the use of interoperability, we should establish and strengthen Europe as international leader in providing 'operative' integrated public services. This means to improve current public services but also it is mandatory to enable new, innovative service concepts. To accomplish a significant leadership, the provision has to be established and expanded all over European. - 18 -
  • 19. Annex III: List of participants Pasi Ahonen Kouvola Region Federation of Municipalities - Finland aalabau@dcom.upv.es Antonio Alabau Universidad Politécnica de Valencia - Spain David Ankri Smart IS Marketing / e-Europe Smart Cards - France edbenelli@yahoo.com Edoardo Benelli FORUS Digital Business Consulting - Italy Stefano Bondanzi SOGEI SPA - Italy Anabela Caetano National Agency for Innovation and Pedroso Knowledge - Portugal Inmaculada Cava Valencian Regional Government / Cava eForum - Spain karl_cox@fr.ibm.com Karl Cox IBM Europe Middle East Africa Maewyn Cumming Cabinet Office - office of the e-Envoy - UK s.r.curwell@salford.ac.uk Stephen R Curwell University of Salford / INTELCITY project Curwell - UK Robin De Paepe Unisys - Belgium County Council of Uppsala - Sweden Benny Eklund Roberto Gagliardi Consorzio Pisa Ricerche - Italy CEN/ISSS Barbara.Gatti@cenorm.be Barbara Gatti walter.gora@eds.com Walter Gora Electronic Data Systems (EDS) - Germany d.gouscos@e-gov.gr Dimitris Gouscos General Secretariat for Public Administration & Electronic Government / e-Government Laboratory, University of Athens - Greece Luis Guijarro Universidad Politecnica de Valencia - Spain Deloitte & Touche - The Netherlands phengeveld@deloitte.nl Willem Hengeveld Ivan Herman The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Rozalia Jehoda- Hungarica Sprl - Hungary Bogo Info Society Development Association / spl@pf.pl Adam Kaminski Eter-Net - Poland klischewski@informatik.uni- Ralf Klischewski University of Hamburg - Germany hamburg.de Raphael Koumeri Planet Ernst & Young - Greece Herbert Kubicek University of Bremen - Germany Csaba Lengyel Kopint-Datorg - Hungary esteam@otenet.gr Gudrun ESTeam A.B. - Sweden Magnusdottir - 19 -
  • 20. Jeremy Millard Danish Technological Institute - Denmark Michele Missikoff Lab for Enterprise Knowledge and Systems, IASI-CNR - Italy Aljosa Pasic SchlumbergerSema - Spain anders.petersson@blomstrand.se Anders Petersson ARTI Blomstrand & Partners - Sweden despina.polemi@expertnet.net.gr Despina Polemi Expertnet SA - Greece Henrik Pundik Kommuneinformation A/S - Denmark Intrasoft International - Luxembourg Antonis Ramfos Laszlo Rumi KDBR Consulting - Hungary elizabeth.scott-wilson@tso.co.uk Elizabeth Scott- The Stationery Office - UK Wilson Henri Snyers Ministry of Home Affairs - Belgium Mechthild Stoewer Fraunhofer Institute - Germany Archetypon S.A. - Greece Themis Tambouris Konstantinos Informatics & Telematics Institute Centre Tarabanis of Research and Technology - Greece k.thiveos@pouliadis.gr Kostas Thiveos Pouliadis Group - Brussels Office - Greece Jean-Pierre Trieau Aquitaine Europe Communication - Trieau France tschichholz@fokus.fhg.de Michael Tschicholz Fraunhofer eGovernment Center / Berlin - Germany Arkel@cardlife.nl Jan van Arkel eEurope Smart Card Charter Tom M. van Dutch Tax and Customs Administration - Engers The Netherlands Dirk Werth Institute for Information Systems, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence - Germany Irina Zálišová BMI – The Czech Republic Arian Zwegers Baan - The Netherlands - 20 -