Action 1.3 Catalogue of ServicesMinutes of Meeting

D04.01 - Meeting Minutes – CPSV-AP revision webinar 2

Action 1.3 Catalogue of Services Specific Contract under Framework Contract DI/07171 – Lot 2

Project: / Action 1.3 Catalogue of Services / Meeting Date/Time: / 03/05/2016
10:00-12:00
Meeting Type: / Webinar / Meeting Location: / Online
Meeting Coordinator: / Michiel de Keyzer/Phil Archer/Thomas D’Haenens/Thimo Thoeye / Issue Date: / 12/05/2016
Attendee Name / Initials / Organisation/Country
Dominic Klauster / DK / Austrian Federal Chancellery, Austria
Bart Hanssens / BH / Fedict, Belgium
Katrien de Smet / KDS / Flemish Agency for Information, Belgium
Thomas D'haenens / TDH
Thimo Thoeye / ThTh / Stad Gent, Belgium
Eva Christina Andersson / ECA / CADF United Nations DR Congo External actions, Belgium
Neven Vrček / NV / University of Zagreb, Croatia
Risto Hinno / RH / Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Estonia
Carolina Gario / CG / European Commission
Marco Latvanen / ML / Suomi.fi, Finland
Themis Tambouris / ThTa / University of Macedonia, Greece
Yannis Charalabidis / YC
Antonio Rotundo / AR / AgID, Italy
Giorgia Lodi / GL
Francesca Gleria / FG / Trento PaT, Italy
Marco Combetto / MC
Nicola Guarino / NG / CNR, Italy
Eduards Cauna / EC / Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Latvia
Dita Gabalina / DG / VARAM, Latvia
Konstantinas Pečiulis / KP / Enterprise Lithuania, Lithuania
Vytautas Juršėnas / VJ / Ministry of the Interior (national public service catalogue), Lithuania
Muriel Foulonneau / MF / Institute of Science & Technology, Luxembourg
Julien Silverio / JS / Centre of Information Technologies of the State (CTIE), Luxembourg
Joseph Azzopardi / JA / Information Technology Agency, Malta
Marco Aarts / MA / ICTU, The Netherlands
Patrocinio Nieto / PN / Ministry of Finance and Public Administrations, Spain
Mikael Österlund / MO / Bolagsverket - Swedish Companies Registration Office, Sweden
Miguel Álvarez Rodríguez / MAR / ISA, European Commission
Sol Mateu / SM
Phil Archer / PA / W3C
Nikolaos Loutas / NL / PwC EU Services
Michiel De Keyzer / MDK
Christophe Parrein / CP
Ana Fernández de Soria / AF
Meeting Agenda
  1. Welcome and overview
  2. Headlines from the Finnish Service Catalogue (FSC)
  3. Applied changes to the CPSV-AP
  4. Current issues in the CPSV-AP
  5. Definition of 'An Event'
  6. Adding the concept of life event and Controlled Vocabularies for Life Events Type
  7. Changing the definition of Public Service
  8. Language for an event
  9. Level of detail for referenced Core Vocs
  10. Extending the Processing Time property of a Public Service
  11. Other issues if time allows
  12. Test implementations and pilots of reusable tools
  13. Next steps and next webinar
  14. Q & A
Presentation and meeting details:
Summary of Meeting
Topic / Summary
Welcome and overview /
  • MDKintroduced the webinar and thanked the WG members for their participation.
  • Two people offered to chair the meeting:
  • Thomas D’Haenens, from the Flemish Agency for Information in Belgium; and
  • Thimo Thoeye, from Stad.gent in Belgium as well.
  • People from the WG are kindly requested to sign the ISA contributor license agreement (CLA) by posting "I agree" as a comment.

Headlines from the Finnish Service Catalogue (FSC): Marko Latvanen /
  • ML gave an overview of how Finland is implementing their data model for the Finnish Service Catalogue (FSC) and its similarities with the CPSV-AP:
  • Through strong authentication, the customer receives tailored public service information, official communications, personal register data and public service suggestions and recommendations;
  • The idea of the FSC follows a basic principle: it approaches information on public services as modular data (organisation, public services and publicservice channel);
  • The FSC foreseesfive channels for the moment, i.e. eChannel, phone, location, webpage and form;
  • A difference with the CPSV-AP is that the cost, as well as some other elements, are connected to the channel;
  • An initial mapping has been done between the CPSV-AP and the FSC data model, which did not raise big challenges. In addition, they are working to achieve cross-border exchange of information on public services with Estonia and thus looking into mapping both data models;
  • Finally, ML explained that the FSC is not only a data model and a platform, but it is also a legal framework that will enforce all administrations to document their public services and make them available on the national catalogue.
  • The slides used to explain the FSC are published on the Documentation section of the webinar page on Joinup.

Applied changes to the CPSV-AP /
  • PA explained the main updates done on the first interim version of CPSV-APv1.1:
  • He added some examples of life events in the scope section (section 1.3);
  • The diagram has been updated and divided into different sections to make it more readable;
  • There are links to the issues on Joinup on the definition of the classes. The issues to discuss during the webinar are highlighted in yellow.

Proposed changes to the CPSV-AP /
  • The following issues were discussed during the webinar:
  1. Definition of ‘An event’
    (
  • PROPOSED: Define an event as “an abstract class that represents an event which can be of any type that triggers, makes use of, or in some way is related to, a Public Service. It is not expected to be used directly, rather, one or other of its subclasses should be used. The properties of the class are, of course, inherited by those subclasses.”
  • PA went through the current attributes of an "Event".
  • NG disagreed with the proposal. He said that an event is “any temporal occurrence that may occur, rather than an event of any type”. He also suggested to use the term “episode” rather than “event”. An event in English is more or less instantaneous. The term“episode” includes both dynamic and static events. For example, a marriage episode or pregnancy episode, implicate the whole period, not just an instant. He suggested to strengthen the fact that this is a temporal episode.
  • NL replied that Business Events and Life Events are not strictly of temporal nature. He proposed to use the term “episode” as literature spoke about "business episodes" in the past.
  • JA raised the concern on using the word “event” to define “event”. In addition, “episode” has a specific meaning in health care. It is also important to point out that this is a high-level definition. He proposed to find a better word than “episode” or “event”.
  • NL proposed “occasion”.
  • DK preferred the term “event”. YC agreed to keep it, adding a more clear definition for temporal nature. PN agrees with this term as well, together with TDH.
  • NG agreed to keep “event” but stressing that they have a temporal nature, and that they can be either dynamic or static. A static event is a situation. JA disagreed with the definition of events being temporary, e.g. death is permanent.
  • ML raised that there are situations that last for years, decades or people that suffer with chronic illnesses, etc. These last for long time, maybe the whole life. The event is the time when things change and you need those public services fast. They are transitional in nature.
  • PN proposed to use the term “circumstance”. NL, AR and NG agreed with him.
  • MA proposed to use “situation”. He explained that life events are roughly something that happens to a citizen, i.e. a change in a person's life of limited duration and that comes with specific public services attached to it. These are recognised by society and governmental organisations, for instance going to do military duty, retiring, etc. DK opined that “situation” is an abstract term that would not be understood correctly.
  • NG explained that "happenings" is a term which is sometimes used as (very informative) synonym of "event".
  • ThTaacceptedthe fact of using a different term because “event” has been used outside its usual meaning in order to cover needs and obligations. However, it is possible that people will not understand the change thus he proposedtocontinue usingthe term “event”.
  • PA clarified that an event is something (relevant) that happens whereas a life event is something (relevant) that happens to a citizen.
  • PROPOSE: Keep the term “event” and extend the definition to cover static and dynamic cases, thinking of event as a possible transition to a new state.
  • NG suggested to assume that all events have a definite duration.
  • NL pointed out that is an attempt to define a term with a term itself (an event is [...] an event).
  • ThTh explained that events can be timely, but they should be referred to as "requirements" or "inputs” in CPSV when they form a permanent condition. In a public service, an occurrence triggers the start of a process. He raised the question on the relation between requirements (e.g. being a citizen) and events. JA replied that events create roles, for instance“patient”.
  • ThTh expressed that most public services already use “circumstance” or "requirements" in order to express eligibility to a certain service.
  • PROPOSE: To experiment with adding a class of “circumstance” which is triggered by an event but is long term, such as disability.
  • ThTa opined that maybe it isnot needed to define whatan event is. It might be enough to describe what we are interested in, i.e. an “event” contains a set of actions which are normally public and private services.
  • NL stressed the fact that conceptual accuracy and practicality need to be balanced. MA, PN and GL agreed with NL to keep it practical.
  • GL added that the goal of the WG is to work on a model that is useable. It would be very difficult to explain to public administrations what metadata is needed in order to document their public services. She proposed to keep “event” as general termimproving the explanation and including examples. She explained that in the Italian catalogue, there are 19 life events identified and they are very general.
  • PA asked GL what would be the “event” for long term home help. ThTaproposed to use “I need home medical assistance” for instance. ML explained that it would not be connected to an event but a target group such as "Elderly" or “Disabled” in the Finnish model.
  • MDK proposed to just keep event, fine-tuning the definition as GL suggested. A "related event" association could also be added.
  • NG added that the word “circumstance” can be used outside the definition for better clarification, i.e. an event is something relevant that happens. For instance, it can be the birth of a new baby, or the circumstance of being in the need for special assistance.
  • PROPOSED: Keep the definition of “event” simple, adding examples to make it clear.The WG agreed on this proposal.
  • The definition will be further elaborated on Joinup and on the new interim version of the specifications.
  1. Adding the concept of life event
    (
  • This issue was treated within the previous issue discussion.
  1. Controlled vocabularies for life events
    (
  • MO explained that they have defined 32 different life events in Sweden and they are happy to share as an input to the work with life events. He was requested to share them on Joinup.
  • ML explained that Finland has also defined a total of 19 life events for citizens. He will also share the list on Joinup. In addition, they are currently working on the list of business events.
  1. Changing the definition of Public Service
    (
  • PROPOSED: A Public Service is a mandatory or discretional set of deeds or acts performed by or on behalf of a public agency for the benefit of an individual or business, or groups thereof. The capacity to act exists whether it is used or not.
  • MA expressed that public agencies also offer many services for the benefit of other public agencies thus this should be added to the definition. NL and ThTh agreed with this.
  • MDK proposed to keep the PS definition as it is as it has proofed already to be practical and it is aligned with practices and literature. NL agreed with him.
  • ThTa opined that the CPSV should keep the official EC definition of PS. He asked about the reason and value of coming up with our own PS definition.
  • PN explained that this is more a semantic matter. The public service exists due to a relationship between the citizen and the government where there are benefits and obligations.
  • JA pointed out that commitment is on behalf of the PA to provide the PS and the citizen may opt not to take it.
  • ML agreed with the proposal. He explained that last year, the FSC adopteda definition that is very close to the proposed formulation. The bottom line is that a publicservice and public service channels are not the same thing, and that "public service" is an immaterial capacity of an organization to act with a customer/client toward a specific goal following a set of transparent rules, regulations and procedures. Public service channels are then the environment where these actions take place.
  • MA asked whether the Service Directive has a definition. NG explained that there is one that defines a service as an economic activity. However, the current PS definition is not consistent with that. He opined that if we want to stay general, we could stay with the Services Directive.
  • NL disagreed with the use of services directive, as it does not apply to all services, i.e. not all public services are economic activities. MDK added that the Services Directive only covers public services for businesses whereas it excludes things that are related to taxes, environment, etc. PN agreed with them.
  • PROPOSED: A Public Service is a mandatory or discretional set of deeds or acts performed by or on behalf of a public agency for the benefit of an individual, another Public Agency or business, or groups thereof. The capacity to act exists whether it is used or not.
  • MDK agreed with the proposal.
  • PN agreed but she would use replace “Public Agency” by “Public Administration”. EC agreed with her.
  • MA raised the question whether the term “benefit” is correct. Taxation, law enforcement, etc. are not always seen as beneficial by their subjects.
  • NG raised out that the problem with the proposed is that public services are not all a set of acts. For instance, the fire service is there even if nothing is done, or a telephone service is not a set of calls, it's the possibility to make calls. It is the difference between an action and the promise of action. He prefers to use the term “commitment” or “obligation”.Another argument in favour of commitment vs. capacity is that a public organisation may be temporarily incapable of delivering a service, but we would say that the public service is still there as long as the public organisationis committed to it.
  • PN pointed out that the telephone call, as a service provided by a company, is out of the scope of our work.
  • GL explained that our definition is more generic. She expressed that we might look at public services from the citizen's point of view, but this could be an offline discussion.
  • PA asked to the WG whether inter and intra government are in scope of the PS definition, or just business and life events.
  • GL expressed that she was told once that they are not in scope.
  • AGREED: The WG agree that inter and intra government are in scope of the PS definition.
  • JA explained that a public service is primarily a user need thus the user could be another public administration entity.
  1. Language for event
    (
  • PROPOSED: Remove the language property from Event class.
  • RESOLVED: The WG agreed on removing the language property from the Event class.
  1. Level of detail for referenced controlled vocabulary
    (
  • PROPOSED: Just cite the properties that are mandatory for the CPSV-AP.
  • RESOLVED: The WG agreed on just cite (includea link) the controlled vocabularies used by the CPSV-AP.
  1. Extending the Processing Time property of a Public Service
    (
  • This issue is opened because the CPSV-AP_IT has been extended the property Processing Time of a Public Service by adding “QuantitativeValue” and a “MeasurementUnit”.
  • GL explained that they tried to use the time as defined on the CPSV-AP however, it can be an exact moment or a period thus they added the quantitative time. For instance, there is a time to complete the entire life event of changing marital status. They used the pattern of the “dayof the week” class that they saw in the Time Ontology[1] having the start day as mandatory and the end as optional.In addition, they use dcterms:temporal to cover things like opening hours.
  • PN pointed outthat “processing time” is different from "availability of the service". Processing time is the time to get the results of the public service, i.e. the benefit, or the time to accomplish the obligation.
  • MDK explained that in the model we currently have processing time, i.e. how long does it take to get the result, and the temporal coverage, which indicates when the PS is available.
  • NG stressed the importance ofusing these temporal aspects, such as the time to process the request, the time to do something, etc. In addition, there are temporal aspects concerning the channel.
  • YC explained that this issue of the channel brings us to something more structural since the time is associated to the channel, as well as properties like cost, inputs…
  • PROPOSED: Consider a more channel-based structure to model.
  • MDK proposed to use both in order to keep the flexibility.
  • NG explained that time and cost may have a different meaning when attached to the public service (understood as commitment) and the public action.
  • As the time was over, the discussion will continue on Joinup.

Next steps and next webinar /
  • The next webinar will take place on the 24thof May.
  • The WG is asked to perform the following tasks before the next webinar:
  • Sign the ISA contributor license agreement;
  • Give feedback on the opened issues using the mailing list () or Joinup;
  • Review the specification and submit new issues through the mailing list or directly on Joinup.
  • MDK explained the rest of work ongoing under the ISA Action 1.3. They are developing test-implementations and pilots of four reusable tools that were specified under the previous contract.
  • People from the WG are able to request to participate in these pilots sending an email to ISA and/or PwC or joining the webinar.
  • The webinar to present the test-implementations will take place on the 19th of May.
  • In addition, there will be a presentation about ISA Action 1.3 during the SEMIC Conference 2016.
  • People from the WG are welcome to discuss with ISA or PwC about the CPSV-AP during the Conference.
  • GL also offered to talk about CPSV-AP_IT with anyone interested during the conference.

Q & A /
  • MDK thanked everyone for the interesting discussion and feedback provided. WG members are welcome to provide further comments and/or questions using the available tools (mailing list and Joinup).

Action Nr / Action description / Target Date / Action Owner
Send meeting minutes to the WG. / 2016-05-13 / PwC
Sign the ISA contributor license agreement. / 2016-05-23 / WG
Give feedback on the opened issues using the mailing list () or Joinup. / 2016-05-23 / WG
Review the specification and submit new issues. / 2016-03-23 / WG
Share the list of life events defined in Sweden on Joinup. / 2016-03-23 / MO
Share the list of life events defined in Finland on Joinup. / 2016-03-23 / ML
Share the list of life events defined in Italy on Joinup. / 2016-03-23 / GL

[1]