Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Description Framework for Digital Public Services


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

A Description Framework for Digital Public Services

  1. 1. National Technical University of AthensDecision Support Systems Laboratory<br />A Description Framework for Digital Public Services <br />Yannis Charalabidis, Fenareti Lampathaki<br />SMART Workshop, Ghent 13.12.2010<br />
  2. 2. Motivation<br />eGovernment resources metadata: an important ingredient to achieve standardised service description, retrieval, composition and cross-organisational collaboration <br />Existing schemas (e.g. UK eGovernment Metadata Schema, based on Dublin Core) present certain shortcomings: <br />Are designed for generic resource description (do not cover the depth and width of the domain)<br />Do not contain or propose value codification (standard codelists)<br />Pan-European standardisation of service metadata is essential for the new Services Directive.<br />Metadata sets form parts in larger eGovernment Ontologies, with applications in public knowledge management and semantic interoperability<br />
  3. 3. The Context: The Greek eGIF<br />Co-ordination Strategy <br />(Vision and Strategy for <br />Interoperability & e-Government, <br />Goals & Metrics, <br />Maturity Matrix & Roadmap for PA) <br />Enterprise Architecture / Organizational Interoperability(Guidelines for Service Documentation, <br />Business Process Alignment & Re-engineering ,<br />Legal Issues)<br />Services &<br />Processes<br />Repository<br />XML Schemas &<br />Core Components<br />Repository<br />Information Architecture/ Semantic Interoperability <br />(Guidelines for XML, Standard Schemas, Codelists, <br />Development Tools)<br />Co-ordination Activities<br />(Marketing & Comm. Plan, <br />Co-ordination & Acceptance <br />Mechanisms)<br />Need for describing resources in a systematic way: <br />eGMS+<br />Computational Architecture / Technical Interoperability <br />(System & Components Topology, Design guidelines)<br />Web Services<br />Repository & UDDI<br />Training Activities <br />(Skills Management, <br />Training Process, <br />Training Material)<br />Systems Reference<br />Repository<br />Web Portals & <br />Multi-channel <br />Access <br />Specifications<br />(Accessibility, <br />Ergonomics,<br />Structure, GCL)<br />Technical <br />Interoperability <br />Specifications<br />(Communication,<br />WS stack, storage<br />standards,<br /> vertical standards)<br />Authentication <br />& Security<br />Specifications<br />(eID, Trust levels, <br />authentication <br />mechanisms,<br />encryption)<br />Access & <br />Collaboration Tools<br />Maintenance Processes<br />(Update, Change Management, <br />Versioning Processes)<br />Certification Tools<br />Certification Framework<br />(For organisations, systems, data and people)<br />“Standards & Specifications” Level<br />“Coordination” Level<br />“Systems” Level<br />
  4. 4. The Context: Service Registries in eGovernment<br />Need for describing resources in a systematic way: <br />eGMS+<br />
  5. 5. Metadata definitions within a Service Registry<br />
  6. 6. Related Work<br />Services<br />Documents<br />Organizations<br />Systems<br />
  7. 7. e-Government OntologyExtract<br />
  8. 8. Metadata Set for ServicesPart I<br />
  9. 9. Metadata Set for ServicesPart II<br />
  10. 10. Metadata Set for Documents<br />
  11. 11. Metadata Set for XML Schemas<br />
  12. 12. Metadata Set for Public Bodies<br />
  13. 13. Metadata Set for Information Systems<br />
  14. 14. Metadata Set for Legal Framework<br />
  15. 15. Controlled Lists<br />
  16. 16. Population of eGMS+<br />
  17. 17. Conclusions – Future Work<br />Standardization of an ontology-based extended metadata set embracing the e-Government knowledge, from services and documents to code lists and information systems, which:<br />Effectively supports the Greek e-Government Interoperability Framework and the Interoperability Registry Prototype implementation.<br />Formalizes the exchange of information between portals and registries.<br />Includes metadata around service delivery scenarios that can guide any business process re-engineering effort in the public sector.<br />Future steps include exploration of how such a metadata set can: <br />(a) embrace policy modelling and intelligent governmental service front-ends<br />(b) be further elicited in order to take into account citizens’ feedback when designing public services.<br />