http://www.nglis.org.uk/tipshome.htm
Taxonomies in the Public Sector meeting of 19 January 2006 (12 noon)
at ODPM, Ashdown House, Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE
Attendees
Jean Bacon (Countryside Agency)
Teresa Blackmore (Cabinet Office)
Mike Collett (Schemeta)
Lucy Cuthbertson (FCO)
Cathy Day (Essex County Council)
Phil Defriez (DoH)
Stella Dextre Clarke (Consultant)
Alan Gilchrist (TFPL Ltd/Cura consortium)
Helen Glass (FCO)
Linda Humphries (eGU)
Zoe Laycock (LB Hounslow)
Mark Maidment (DEFRA)
Barbara Munden (LB Hounslow)
Julia Reed (DfES)
Joyce Stannard (ODPM)
Nick Tischler (PITO)
Judi Vernau (Meta taxis)
Sheila Walker(HO)
Christine Wilson (FCO)
Apologies
Ben Anderson (DWP)
Ruth Byford (Seamless)
David Eilbeck (Inland Revenue)
Ian Huckvale (Simulacra)
Michael Warner (MOD)
1. Introduction:
Michael Warner had been taken ill and was unable to attend the meeting. The
Group extended their best wishes for a speedy recovery. In his absence the host
welcomed all the attendees to the third TiPS meeting, and it was agreed that Group
members would act as Chair for the agenda items for which they are in the lead.
Teresa was welcomed to the Group (and subsequently Zoe and Barbara) and round
table introductions made.
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed subject to the following correction: item
4 para. 3 should read ‘Sheila Apicella’ rather than ‘Stella Apicella’.
Stella raised the issue of whether TiPS meeting minutes should be issued on
Cabinet Office eGU headed paper (and no sign of the TiPS logo). Linda said that
Michael had cleared the matter with her and, pending clarification of the Group’s
relationship to the eGU working groups, minutes should be issued in this way.
Discussion ensued about this relationship and the eGU consultation papers on the
proposed terms of reference of the Metadata Working Group (MWG) and the
Metadata Compliance Working Group (MCWG). The Group expressed an interest in
continuing to have a relationship with the eGU working groups, reporting either to the
Interoperability or Metadata Working Group, even if our remit is broader. Not all
TiPS members who are also Metadata Working Group members had received the
papers. They are posted on the GovTalk website at
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/metadata_document.asp?docnum=985
and all TiPS members were encouraged to read them and send their thoughts to
Michael as a matter of urgency as the closing date for comments on these proposals
is 17th February 2006.
All
TiPS 2006-01-19
The actions from the previous meeting were reviewed. Most actions would be
covered by the agenda items and all other actions were completed.
To review the eGU consultation papers on the proposed terms of reference of the
Metadata Working Group (MWG) and the Metadata Compliance Working Group
(MCWG) on Govtalk and submit their comments to Michael by 15th February.
1
2. TiPS web site update:
MM
Editorial
team
and NT
All
Mark reported on the meeting of the TiPS website editorial team which had met
earlier in the day to discuss the design and content of the site. Mark is to tweak
and update the site in line with the team’s suggestions. When this initial work on
the look and feel of the site is completed he will notify TiPS members by email.
Mark stressed that the site is a work in progress. When the Group is content with
the design, it will transfer to the NGLIS server and work to populate and update
the content can progress.
The Group thanked Nick for his work on a logo for TiPS. The editorial team will
liaise with Nick on further work to ensure the distinctiveness of the logo and to
produce versions suitable for output in different sizes before the logo is officially
ratified.
To implement the changes to the design and content of the site recommended by
the editorial team and make available to the Group for review and comment.
To remove ‘Draft’ from the benefits paper (now endorsed as version 1.0).
To review logo in the context of the website and submit to Group for ratification
To comment on the revised design and content.
3. Future plans for the eGU to achieve interoperability, standardisation:
Linda reported on the eGU’s plans. A Chief Technical Officers (CTO) Council has
been formed to support the IT business transformation of government to deliver
better services. It is intended to complement the workings of the Chief Information
Officers (CIO) Council (established in January 2005). The CIO Council will create
the IT strategy; CTOs sort out technically how to deliver it, ensuring the right
technologies are in place at the right time. This will set the agenda and priorities for
eGU. Amongst the topics identified for the CTOs to tackle are enterprise architecture,
shared services/ERP/Portals and EDRM/Sharepoint.
A collegiate approach to funding is proposed. CTOs will identify particular projects
which are a priority for their businesses which they will fund and develop. The eGU
will steer and assist in whatever way they can and try to make the project
deliverables useful to others. The Group expressed their concerns about the viability
of this funding mechanism for ongoing maintenance of the e-GMS and its encoding
schemes. They stressed the continuing need for a central champion, especially in
relation to lobbying and compliance and the policing of compliance.
The CTOs will nominate members of the Interoperability Working Group. John
Wailing has indicated that he wants the scope of e-GIF to be broadened. Concerning
the membership of the CTO Council, Linda confirmed that a list was available on the
GSI. It should be regarded as a Restricted document, not for circulation to external
correspondents. This would enable each member to discuss priorities with the CTO
responsible for the input from his/her own organisation.
It is anticipated that e-GMS v3.1 will be issued around Easter 2006. This version will
mop up some editorial matters and clarify the position of IPSV. Any major changes
which would involve a change of direction will be deferred until version 4. This will
follow but as yet there is no precise timeframe though it will not be issued before the
next financial year. Cathy Day stressed that the decision on whether to remove the
category and keyword refinements to the subject element would need to be taken in
tandem with the decision on whether to mandate IPSV as the encoding scheme, as
IPSV is incompatible with the refinements.
LH
TiPS 2006-01-19
To circulate a list of the CTOs to TiPS members
2
4. Guideline for the scope and content of the abridged version of IPSV and feedback
on the IPSV Board meeting and discussion paper presented by Ben Plouviez
Stella Dextre Clarke introduced her paper concerning the abridged version of IPSV,
which outlined some possible criteria for selecting content. She also reported on the
IPSV Board’s discussion of a paper from the Scottish Executive on a related topic –
whether and how to put limits on the level of specificity of IPSV. Feedback from the
Board representative from Northern Ireland suggested that before determining
selection policy, it would be important to consider how the vocabulary and its subsets
were intended to be used. Accordingly, Stella invited TiPS members to share views
on plans for using the Abridged version, bearing in mind also the availability of the
Internal Vocabulary subset.
It was acknowledged that within the interest group of local government and the
community sector, a picture is emerging of how the full IPSV may be used for
detailed indexing. But for the rest of the public sector, including central government
departments and their agencies, IPSV does not hold the specialised terms relevant
to their responsibilities and the extensive hierarchies in the full IPSV are irrelevant.
While the Abridged Version may be generally applicable, mechanisms are not yet in
place for applying it to interoperability when retrieving information. At this watershed
moment following the demise of the GCL, TiPS members felt a new interoperability
model was needed.
In summary, it was felt that the IPSV Board should be requested to provide more
clarification on the interoperability architecture which would determine how IPSV
should be used. Preferably this should include a mechanism for relating the higher
levels of IPSV to the specialised vocabularies of the departments and other
agencies.
Time did not permit consideration of the selection criteria for the Abridged Version,
but members were requested to consider the discussion and send their comments to
Stella (with copy to the Chair) by 10th February.
Before leaving the item, the members reaffirmed their general commitment to
taxonomies as a necessary building block for semantic interoperability, especially
when dealing with unstructured information.
MW
All
To ask the IPSV Board to provide more clarification on the interoperability
architecture which would determine how IPSV should be used
Send comments to Stella (copied to Michael) on the selection criteria for the
Abridged version by 10th February
5. TiPS response to the eGU Transformational government paper
SDC
All
TiPS 2006-01-19
The Group discussed the draft response to eGU on the Transformational
Government paper. There was a general feeling that the underlying principles were
sound but there were reservations about how well they were working. Effective
development and application of the standards are crucial to success and the
infrastructure for interoperability functions is also an important element.
The Group recommended that the tone of the final sentence of paragraph 2 be
strengthened and that the points under discussion should be incorporated. Stella
agreed to revise the draft and circulate it for further comment by 27 th January.
Stella to amend the draft response in line with the points made and taking account of
the earlier discussions and to circulate to TiPS members for further comment.
To submit comments on the revised draft to Michael and Stella by 27/01/06.
3
Any other business
Judi asked if anyone had any information about a cross-government file plan which
was rumoured to emanate from the Cabinet Office. Teresa offered to investigate on
behalf of TiPS.
Judi reported that the first meeting of the sub-group on corporate file plans had
proved very useful. The Group endorsed her wish for a second meeting which she
offered to organise.
Mapping is scheduled as the focus for the next meeting. Any suggestions for specific
issues should be sent to Michael.
The Group supported Stella's proposal that the Chair should request that Linda
circulate a draft of e-GMS 3.1 to the Group for comment
TB
The Group thanked Joyce for hosting the meeting.
To investigate the existence of a cross-government file plan.
JV
To arrange a second subgroup meeting on corporate file plans.
All
To submit agenda issues for the next meeting which will focus on mapping.
MW
To ask Linda to circulate the draft e-GMS 3.1 to TiPS members for comment.
7. Date of the Next Meeting
30th March 2006 10:30 – 16:00 To be held at DEFRA Ergon House, corner of
Horseferry Road and Dean Bradley Street, LONDON (no lunch provided)
Action
Review the eGU consultation papers on the proposed terms of reference
of the Metadata Working Group (MWG) and the Metadata Compliance
Working Group (MCWG) on GovTalk and submit comments to Michael by
15th February
To implement the changes to the design and content of the site
recommended by the editorial team and make available to the Group for
review and comment.
To remove ‘Draft’ from the benefits paper (now endorsed as version 1.0).
To review logo and submit to Group for ratification
To comment on the revised design and content of TiPS website.
To circulate a list of the CTOs to TiPS members
To ask the IPSV Board to provide more clarification on the interoperability
architecture which would determine how IPSV should be used
Send comments to Stella (copied to Michael) on the selection criteria for
the Abridged version by 10th February
Stella to amend the draft response to the Transformational government
paper in line with the points made and taking account of the earlier
discussions and to circulate to TiPS members for further comment.
To submit comments on the revised draft response to the
Transformational government paper to Michael and Stella by 27/01/06.
To investigate the existence of a cross-government file plan.
To arrange a second subgroup meeting on corporate file plans.
To submit agenda issues for the next meeting which will focus on
mapping.
To ask Linda to circulate the draft e-GMS 3.1 to TiPS members for
comment.
TiPS 2006-01-19
4
Owner
All
MM
Editorial
team and
NT
All
LH
MW
ALL
SDC
ALL
TB
JV
ALL
MW