An Ontology? Me? Why? Introducing knowledge management principles to eGovernment Peter F Brown Pensive.eu All content © 2007, Pensive.eu. Check URI in header for most recent and/or authentic version. This file may be copied on condition that it remains complete and intact, including this page.

Overview ► eGovernment services development ► Problems of cooperation ► The “Stone Soup” paradigm ► Ontology development “ by stealth ” © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 2

Personal Background ► Council of Europe <1989 ► European Parliament < 2005 ► Adviser on IT strategy ► Head of Service responsible for Information Architecture and Data Standards ► Austrian Federal Chancellery ► Senior Adviser on European eGovernment Strategy ► Chair, “eGovernment Focus Group” of CEN ► Founder of Pensive © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 3

Pensive – Thoughtful Solutions ► Consultancy in eGovernment and eBusiness projects ► Research in Information Modelling and “semantic technologies” ► Software Development © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 4

eGovernment services development ► Demand for “pan European eGovernment Services ► However, most services are developed within specific government agencies ► no need or mandate to work across borders ► focus on own needs ► budgets and resources determined on basis of service delivery ► Increasing demand and need for cross agency and cross-border services ► how can agencies work together? © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 5

Problems of cooperation ► “We know there are better ways of doing things, but don’t know where to look – or not sure that what we find is the ‘whole picture’. We need a common radar” ► “We want to avoid duplication and cut costs” ► “We would like to share but how? what legal assurances do we have?” ► “There is plenty of exchange but no dialogue” ► “We’re happy to bring things to the table, but who’s looking after the table” ► “There are a lot of projects that think they have the centre of attention but there is no monopoly of wisdom” © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 6

The “Stone Soup” paradigm ► A Parable ► A collaboration model ► A methodology © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 7

8 The Parable Once upon a time… There was a great famine in which people jealously hoarded whatever food they could find… One day a wandering soldier came into a village asking for help to make a meal… “There's nothing to eat here,” he was told. “Better keep moving on.”

9 The Parable The soldier replied: “I have all that I need but I was thinking of making stone soup to share with you all.” He brought out an ordinary-looking stone from a bag. “All I ask from you is a pot and some water”, he added. When this was brought to him by a curious villager, he added the stone, lit a fire under the pot and started to heat his “soup”. “Ahh,” said the soldier, “Very good but it could still do with something extra, if there is to be enough for everyone. A pity there’s nothing more…”

10 The Parable Other villagers had started to gather round out of hunger and curiosity…and some started to respond. One villager came forward cautiously with a bit of meat that he had been hiding, and added it to the pot. Another followed, with a potato… And so it continued, with other vegetables, herbs and spices until, indeed, there was a delicious meal for everyone.

11 The Collaboration Model The main lesson is: Resource sharing is often more about a willingness to cooperate and collaborate, than it is about the availability of actual resources to be shared. The main question is: Can we apply this “stone soup” model to the vast area of eGovernment resource sharing? and if so, how?

12 Using existing resources Many of the initial “ingredients” for a collaborative model of eGovernment resource sharing already exist but: ► are “locked” into specific projects; ► as “projects”, not always sustainable or sustained (disappearing websites, etc.) ► were not designed with other, future, use in mind

StoneSoup ► A European eGovernment Resource Network ► Highlighting the “problem” – establishing the value proposition ► easier on a national level ► less so on a cross-border or pan-European level ► “Political” support ► Bootstrapping ► Practical constraints ► No initial or substantial funding, so ► Concentrate initially on the “meta level” – information about existing eGovernment resources

First ingredients ► Results from existing (national or sub-national) eGovernment projects ► Results from Commission funded projects ► Common model for “description” of “ingredients” (an “ontology”?) ► Common collaboration methodology © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 14

Ontology development “ by stealth ” ► Do we need the “formal” definition of ontology ► can we work with it? ► is it adequate? ► Do we need a highly formalised “top down” model? ► Do we work from the bottom up with user-centred terminology (“folksonomies”)? ► Can we do both? © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 15

Ontology development ► Not rocket science ► ‘but even rocket science is not “rocket science”… ► Start with simple high level concepts ► use mission statements like “we are responsible for tax collection online”; “we track the shipments of hazardous waste across different countries” ► talk to humans not their machines ☺ ► talk to people who work in the relevant fields (and not to “ontologists”, philosophers, “IT specialists”) ► An example (a simple one…)

Example: An ontology of ontology!

Back to the real world… ► An eGovernment Ontology? Why? ► To understand better: ► “what we have” ► relationships between them ► Also to help others understand what we have ► Promote a common model of sharing information about eGovernment services ► “I have material to share. How can I share it?” ► “I want to find what others have. How? ► How could I work with others to build something together?”

“What do you have?” © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 19

Current Model for Sharing © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 20

Target Model for Sharing © Pensive.eu, All Rights Reserved 21

CEN eGovernment Ontology ► Developing requirements for federated information sharing: ► Reference implementations using ISO “Topic Maps” and RDF ► Demonstrators (on OSS and Microsoft platforms) ► Cooperation with WeGo Project ► Agreed to allow WeGo Project to already use the draft ► Use it to capture key information and encourage de- centralised management ► Use as feedback for CEN project > iteration

Next steps ► Demonstrating information sharing in practice: ► across different systems/platforms ► across languages ► 2-4 demonstrators ► Building momentum: ► possible new “thematic network” ► Pensive to provide infrastructure based on CEN work ► Encouraging “network effect” ► Relationship with other cross-border projects ► Common identity: “eGRN-Stone Soup”

An Ontology? Me? Why? Knowledge Management in eGovernment Comments? Questions?