20110210 Challenges of the National Interoperability Framework; lessons learnt, input for ISA.


Published on

National interoperability framework
What to do to facilitate, improve
and develop IOP? Challenges thinking about the European context.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

20110210 Challenges of the National Interoperability Framework; lessons learnt, input for ISA.

  1. 1. ISA WG on Interoperability ArchitectureLearning Day on February, 10thWhat to do to facilitate, improveand develop IOP? Miguel A. Amutio Ministry of Territorial Policy and Public Administration 1
  2. 2. Context and problem statement (1/2)State Autonomous Local Entities Communities (Regional level)  17 Autonomous  8.108 17 Departments Communities municipalities 139 Autonomous organisms  2 Autonomous cities The Department of Presidency  41 County councilsis the one with the responsibility  10 Chapters andof the technological island Councilsmodernization 2
  3. 3. Context and problem statement (2/2) Recognises the citizens’ right to interact with PublicAdministration by electronic means → obligation to publicadministrations to enable electronic access to their services. Regulates principles, rights. Regulates basic aspects of IT use in administrative procedures:electronic site, e-registries, e-identification, e-communications and e-notifications,electronic administrative procedure, e-documents, … Cooperation of Public Administrations to facilitate access toservices. + Legal development: - RD 1671/2009, development of specific aspects of Law 11/2007. - RD 3/2010, National Security Framework - RD 4/4010, National Interoperability Framework - ... 3
  4. 4. Interoperability Solution The Spanish NIF is a legal text (Royal Decree 4/2010)It develops the provisions about interoperability foreseen in eGov. Law11/2007, art 42. A set of direct statements to build and improveinteroperability. To be followed by all Public administrations in theirrelations between them and with citizens. 4
  5. 5. Interoperability Solution... 5
  6. 6. What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (1/3)#1 Services provided are identified; also administrative units. Inventory of administrative Procedures and services provided: in the GeneralState Administration done with System of Administrative Information (SIA). Inventory of administrative and registry offices: Done through the CommonDirectory – Directorio Común); and associated codings. (Something equivalent would be the IMIDB of competente authorities). Interconnection of registry offices: Done through the system called SIR.#2 Services are available through the administrative network;conditions of use are known (published).Development of supporting instruments: Role of Intermediation services (SVD).#3 The role of “interoperability nodes” is recognized. Entities that provide IOP services (Org., Sem., tech.) on behalf of others. IOP nodes notably simplify organizational interoperability. Intermediation services: facilitate the access to BASIC REGISTRIES. (e.g.Identity, Residence, Catastral information, Tax information Social Security information, Educationtitles...) Some kind of nodes are usuarlly needed: STESTA LDCPs, STORK PEPs, ... 6
  7. 7. What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (2/3)#4 Semantic assets are published and used. Share, reuse and collaborate around a collaborative instrument equivalent toSEMIC.EU (currently under development).#5 Use of standards. Legal basis: (EU) D.98/34/C, national (Law 11/2007), ... + Additional criteria (inspired in CAMSS). Catalogue of standards for IOP and rules of maintenance under development.#6 Common infrastructures and services are available, usedand linked with equivalent ones → Local->Regional->National->EU. 7
  8. 8. What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (3/3)#7 In particular, all P.A.s are connected through adm. Network.and equivalent networks → Local->Regional->National->EU Administrative Network (Red SARA) connected to sTESTA.#8 eIdentification, eAuthentication and eSignature areinteroperable in an scenario of diversity (CSPs, certificates, ...) Electronic Identity Card (DNI-e). Platform of validation services @Firma: > 100 types of certificates of >15 providers(national and int.) used by > 500 entities of Public Administrations. STORK for cross border interoperability.#9 Conditions for interoperability of eDocuments are defined. There is a common understanting about eDocument and eFile. There are agreed XML structures for exchange of Documents and Files.#10 Share, reuse and collaborate → Local->Regional->National->EU There are collaborative instruments linked with equivalent ones. 8
  9. 9. Reusable elements “Reusable architecture framework, existing practical guidelines,concepts and methods, artefacts per EIF layer, … + additionalsupporting documents”: Global approach to interoperability, recognised within the fulllegal development of eGovernment (available in English), in a complexadministrative environement. What to do, the 10 statements included in this presentation. eSgnature Policy, for a complex administrative environment. Policy documents about eDocument and related issues. @Firma (Client of @Firma released under EUPL and GPL v3). Also online Online validation service of eSignatures and certificates(VALIDE https://valide.redsara.es) Model and system for intermediantion services (SVD) ... 9
  10. 10. Many thanksONU eGov Country E-Government 2010 Rank 2010 Rank 2008 Rank ChangeReport Republic of Korea 0.8785 1 6 +5 United States of 0.8510 2 4 +2 America Canada 0.8448 3 7 +4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 0.8147 4 10 +6 Ireland Netherlands 0.8097 5 5 -- Norway 0.8020 6 3 -3 Denmark 0.7872 7 2 -5 Australia 0.7863 8 8 -- Spain 0.7516 9 20 +11 France 0.7510 10 9 -1 10