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.

Interoperability in public sector


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Interoperability in public sector

  1. 1. Interoperability in Public Sector - How Use of a Lightweight Approach Can Reduce the Gap Between Plans and Reality - Svein Ølnes, Western Norway Research Institute (Vestforsk), Norway
  2. 2. Interoperability? Norwegian Swiss
  3. 3. Content  Main question answered  What a difference a little semantics can do  The troublesome gap between plans and reality  Los – An example of a lightweight approach  Conclusions and further research
  4. 4. Main question answered  There is a huge gap between plans and reality when it comes to functional interoperability in public sector  Are the ambitions too high?  Part of the solution: A lightweight approach  “as simple as possible”
  5. 5. What a difference a little semantics can do
  6. 6. What a difference a little semantics can do
  7. 7. Gap between plans and reality  European level (Codagnone and Wimmer, 2007):  Although a lot of attention is already been paid to interoperability, the gaps in this storyline were assessed as very high and relevant according to the eGovernance model.  Norway  Framework for service oriented architecture proposed 2007  Not much has happened since  The Government is struggling with how to deal with this issue  In the mean time a lot of trials and errors (for instance the Seres I and II example by the National Registry Centre (Brønnøysund Register Centre)
  8. 8. Interoperability - definitions  Definition 1 (EIF 1.0):  Interoperability means the ability of information and communication technology (ICT) systems and of the business processes they support to exchange data and to enable the sharing of information and knowledge.  Definition 2 (EIF 2.0):  Interoperability is the ability of disparate and diverse organisations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed common goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between the organizations via the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their respective information and communication technology (ICT) systems.
  9. 9. Increasing complexity in frameworks  EIF 1.0 (2004)  Organisational interoperability  Semantic i.o.  Technical i.o.  EIF 2.0 (draft, 2008)  Revision of EIF 1.0 started in 2006 – still no final update
  10. 10. Comparison to the development of HTML5  xhtml 1.0  HTML 4.01 expressed in xml syntacs  xhtml 1.1  Pure xml (no Mime text/html, but xml)  xhtml 2.0  a shiny new and bright standard “relieved from the HTML sufferings”  full support for the semantic web  no backwards compatibility  a disaster!  HTML5  the browser developers in charge  support for Microformats rather than the full semantic web  pragmatics rather than theoretical perfection
  11. 11. Los – A lightweight approach to interoperability  Los – Norwegian for “Navigator at sea”  aided navigation in a sea of information  A thesauri for public services  controlled vocabulary arranged as a thesauri  ca. 400 keywords + ca. 1 500 synonyms, outdated terms ++  user orientation (the terms used by “the man in the street”)  expressed using the Dublin Core metadata standard, rss sharing  distinguish between description of services and the services themselves  Exchange of information between sectors and organisations  Cross sector: Between government agencies and municipalities  Between organisations in the same sector  Primarily used in the municipalities  ca. 100 (of 430) municipalities uses Los in their portals
  12. 12. Los – structure Tema = Theme Emneord = Keyword Nettressurs = Net resources
  13. 13. Los – examples of use in municipality portals Bergen
  14. 14. Los – examples of use in municipality portals Sørum Førde
  15. 15. Classification and Categorisation
  16. 16. Conclusions and further research  We are waiting for guidelines (ref. EIF 2.0 and other frameworks)  In the mean time: Shed light on the good examples  Look for simpler solutions (less risk, quicker gains)  Is there too little emphasis on “simple” solutions?  for instance: rss as a method of information exchange, microformats and/or RDFa for semantic expressions  “small pieces loosely joined” (David Weinberger)  “Top down” or “bottom up”?  How does lightweight approaches go together with more demanding interoperability initiatives and frameworks?
  17. 17. End of presentation Thanks for your attention! Svein Ølnes – This presentation: