Interoperability in public sector presentation at e gove 2010 lausanne


Published on

Presentation at IFIP eGov 2010 in Lausanne 31.08.2010

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

Interoperability in public sector presentation at e gove 2010 lausanne

  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  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 ++  faceted classification  expressed in the Dublin Core metadata standard  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 100 (of 430) municipalities uses Los in their portals  ca.
  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  Is there too little emphasis on “simple” solutions?  “Top down” or “bottom up”?  How does lightweight approaches go together with more demanding interoperability initiatives and frameworks?
  17. 17. End of presentation Thanks! Contact information Svein Ølnes –