NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p1

NIFO - Alignment examples

Interoperability levels

Interoperability levels p.2

Legal interoperability: Public administrations should carefully consider all relevant

legislation relating to data exchange, including data protection legislation, when seeking to establish a European public service. p.3

Organisational interoperability - business process alignment. Public administrations should document their business processes and agree on how these processes will interact to

deliver a (European) public service. p.4

Inter-governmental coordination p.5

Organisational interoperability - organisational relationships. Public administrations should clarify their organisational relationships as part of the establishment of a

(European) public service. p.6

Organisational interoperability - change management: Public administrations working together to provide (European) public services should agree on change management

processes to ensure continuous service delivery. p.7

Semantic interoperability: Public administrations, when working together to establish (European) public services, should use a common taxonomy of basic public services.

p.8

Public administrations should support the establishment of sector-specific and cross-sectoral communities that aim to facilitate semantic interoperability and should

encourage the communities to share results on national and European platforms p.9

Technical interoperability: Public administrations should agree on the formalised specifications to ensure technical interoperability when establishing European public

services. p.11

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p2

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Interoperability levels

Measurement: Does the NIF describe the four

levels of interoperability?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4, Interoperability

Level

Example 1: Germany

The different Interoperability levels in Germany are described in SAGA 5.0 (Standards and Architectures for

eGovernment applications)

- Organisational interoperability: Organisational interoperability is supported by the National Process Library

initiative.

- Technical interoperability: Technical interoperability is achieved by Germany’s standardisation initiative SAGA

5.0

- Semantic interoperability: Semantic interoperability is achieved by the XÖV initiative (XML in public

administrations).

- Legally: On the legal level, Germany has established a new E-Government legislation on federal level (7. June

2013). The E-Government law aims at providing the tools for E-Government services, fosters interoperability and

increases the transparency of German public administrations.

See SAGA 5.0; 3. Ziele, 3.5 Interoperabilität, http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Architekturen-

und-Standards/SAGA/saga_modul_grundlagen_de_bund_5_1_0_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Example 2: France

The French RGI (General Interoperability Repository) describes 6 levels of interoperability: the political, legal,

organisational, semantic, syntactical and technical level, but the scope of the RGI concentrates mainly on the 3

last levels.

- Semantic level: The semantics cover both the meaning of words and the relationship between the words

(homonymy, synonymy, etc..). The meaning of words varies between organizations, businesses, actors and

contexts. Any collaboration between entities requires a communication within the meaning of information

exchange. For this, these entities agree on the meaning of the data they exchange.

- Syntactic level: The syntax translates the meaning into symbols. Between semantics and syntax, there is the

same relationship as between the substance and form.

- Technical level: The technical level puts in place the information defined on the semantic and syntactical level.

https://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/RGI_Version1%200.pdf

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p3

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Legal interoperability: Public administrations should carefully consider all relevant legislation relating to data exchange, including data protection

legislation, when seeking to establish a European public service.

Measurement: Does the NIF impose to consider

all relevant legislation related to data exchange?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 14

Example 1: Estonia

In Estonia, state information systems are coordinated with legal acts, interoperability is regulated with various

agreements, standards or recommendations. All the relevant legal acts extend to information systems. Legal acts

that directly regulate digital information, include:

- Public Information Act

- State Information Management System

- System of Security Measures of the Information System

- Digital Signatures Act

- Electronic Communications Act

- Archives Act

- Official Statistics Act

- Personal Data Protection Act

- Public Procurement Act

- Data Exchange Layer of Information Systems

- System of Classificators

- State Secrets and Classified information of Foreign States Act

- Spatial Data Act

See http://www.riso.ee/sites/default/files/koosvoime/interoperability-framework.odt

Example 2: Sweden

A number of guidelines for legal aspects regarding e-gov have been developed. The guidelines highlight the

importance of legislation on data exchange and data protection, as well as the ramifications that may arise in

electronic environments.

See: http://www.esamverka.se/stod-och-vagledning/juridik/juridiska-vagledningar.html

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p4

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Organisational interoperability - business process alignment.

Public administrations should document their business processes and agree on how these processes will interact to deliver a (European) public service.

Measurement: Does the NIF describe that the

business processes are documented in an agreed

way in order for other administrations to

understand the overall business process?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 15

Example 1: Greece

In Greece, the Interoperability and Electronic Services Provision Framework states that:

- The process and service mapping and documentation aims at ensuring that electronic services offered by public

organisations are well documented (process flows, metadata descriptions, etc.) and properly managed, i.e. it is

clear who is responsible for the management and the delivery of each service (or part of a service), and these

responsibilities are described in the documentation of the service.

See Interoperability and Electronic Services Provision Framework, http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/portal/page/portal/egif/

- The Documentation Model for Public Administration Processes and Data (DMPAPD) aims at defining the

notation, the rules and the specifications that must guide the process and data models’ design which must be

based on either BPMN and UML activity diagrams in the case of processes, and XML Schema and UN/CEFACT

CCTS in the case of documents and data.

See DMPAPD, http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/211037.PDF

Example 2: Slovakia

See: Business architecture p.25 Section 4.1 The National Concept of eGovernment.

(http://www.informatizacia.sk/ext_dok-nkivs-s+C31r_2016/23668c).

It exists also a mandatory code list about areas and agendas of competence with individual public institutions. The

process and e-service definition is required both within the data entered into the Central Metainformation System

of Public Administration and within projects funded by structural funds under information society area.

Secondly, a defined documentation is required in all public IT projects.

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p5

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Inter-governmental coordination

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage to agree

on how these processes will interact among the

different levels of public administrations?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 15

Example 1: Croatia

Act on State Information Infrastructure, adopted by the Croatian Parliament at its session on 15 July 2014. This

Act regulates the rights, obligations and responsibilities of competent public sector bodies with regard to the

establishment, development and management of the state information infrastructure system, establishing and

managing the public register system and the conditions which the state information infrastructure has to provide

regarding public registers, as well as the use of a common base for a secure data exchange within the state

information infrastructure system, a common identification and authentication system, a single point of interaction

with the citizens and other users. In order to monitor and coordinate the development of the state information

infrastructure and the preparation of reports to the Croatian Government established the Council for State

Information Infrastructur.Council chaired by the Prime minister.

Example 2: Greece

The Greek Interoperability and Electronic Services Provision Framework addresses business process alignment:

e.g. identification of business interoperability interfaces and agreement on the business terms of the collaboration.

This task is very important when the delivery of an electronic service depends on the collaboration of two or more

organisations.

See Interoperability and Electronic Services Provision Framework, http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/portal/page/portal/egif/

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p6

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Organisational interoperability - organisational relationships.

Public administrations should clarify their organisational relationships as part of the establishment of a (European) public service.

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage public

administrations to clarify their organisational

relationships as part of the establishment of a

(European) public service?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 16

Example 1: Croatia

Public Administration Developement Strategy 2015 - 2020 "Informatisation of public administration will be

conducted in line with the eCroatia 2020 Strategy, which is in preparation. eGovernment will be introduced in such

a way that all public authorities ensure e-services from their scope, and attention will be paid to using resources

from EU funds, first of all the ERDF, to develop e-services which cover the highest number of users, have the best

effect on economy, increase efficiency, reduce the time required to provide services and increase transparency,

and which are considered necessary by citizens and businesses according to a survey of public satisfaction with

the electronic services of the public sector. The development of information infrastructure will be based on the

development of a common interoperability system in the Shared Services Centre and the system for the joint use

of computer and communication infrastructure based on the ‘cloud’ paradigm. Special attention in the

development of electronic government will be paid to personal data protection and data security. Data will be

exchanged between different registers and institutions in line with legal powers and information security

requirements, which will be elaborated in more detail in a strategic document on digital growth."

Example 2: The Netherlands

The Dutch Government Reference Architecture (Nederlandse Overheid Referentie Architectuur, NORA)

encourages public administrations to clarify their organisational relationships. NORA provides the following

principle (AP) 28: "Service provider and user have reached service level agreements on the service delivery".

NORA also explains that individual organisations are responsible for reaching these agreements.

See NORA principles for cooperation and service delivery,p.5, http://noraonline.nl/wiki/Afgeleide_principes

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p7

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Organisational interoperability - change management

Public administrations working together to provide (European) public services should agree on change management processes to ensure continuous service

delivery.

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage public

administrations to agree on change management

processes to ensure continuous service delivery?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, recommendation 17

Example 1: Estonia

The Estonian operation level documentation contains descriptions, instructions, rules, service level agreements,

descriptions of procedures to support change management.

An information system architecture document must contain a short description of the principles of the

management of services and changes.

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13147268

http://www.riso.ee/sites/default/files/koosvoime/interoperability-framework.odt

Example 2: The Netherlands

The Dutch Government Reference Architecture (Nederlandse Overheid Referentie Architectuur, NORA) ensures

continuous service delivery based on change management processes. NORA provides the following principles

(AP) 31: “The quality of the service is governed on basis of cyclical feedback”, (AP) 25: “Delivery of the service is

continuously guaranteed”.

See NORA principles for cooperation and service delivery, http://noraonline.nl/wiki/Afgeleide_principes

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p8

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Semantic interoperability

Public administrations, when working together to establish (European) public services, should use a common taxonomy of basic public services.

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage the

usage of a common taxonomy of basic public

service?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 13

Example 1: Greece

The Greek Interoperability Framework includes guidelines for the definition of code lists, core data components,

data types, standard XML schemas, metadata, ontologies, and interoperability registries. These topics are further

described in the Documentation Model for Public Administration Processes and Data.

See Interoperability and Electronic Services Provision Framework, http://www.e-gif.gov.gr/portal/page/portal/egif/

Example 2: Estonia

The Semantic Interoperability Framework

(https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/riigi_infosusteemide_semantilise_koosvoime_raamistik.pdf) is a set of

multilateral agreements and rules, which would facilitate the linkage between systems at the semantic level.

The following types of semantic assets are included:

- dictionaries

- thesauri

- code lists and classifications,

- taxonomies,

- conversion table (mapping tables),

- ontologies,

- service register.

https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/interoperability-framework_2011.doc

Estonian Interoperability Framework (version 3.0), chapter 4, Interoperability levels

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p9

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Public administrations should support the establishment of sector-specific and cross-sectoral communities that aim to facilitate semantic interoperability and should encourage the communities to share results on national and European

platforms.

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage public

administrations to support the establishment of

sector-specific and cross-sectoral communities

that aim to facilitate semantic interoperability and

that share results on national and European

platforms?

EIF reference: EIF, recommendation 18

Example 1: Germany

The German online standardisation project (Deutschland-online Standardisierung) contains XÖV (XML for public

administrations) working groups that aligned on the following:

- Data conference working group to define general data models (XÖV Core components) for all public services

- Delivery and implementation of XÖV standards working group to address the practical use of the completed

XÖV standards.

See http://www.cio.bund.de/DE/Architekturen-und-Standards/Daten-und-Prozessmodellierung/XML-in-der-

oeffentlichen-Verwaltung/xml_verwaltung_inhalt.html

Example 2: Malta

The Maltese semantic interoperability depends primarily on high-quality documentation of repositories (registries /

databases), services, applications and ultimately business domains. To reach a mature and stable semantic state,

collaborative agreements should be established across the public sector to establish a realistic version of the

asset descriptions. Policies, standards and procedures can be created to centrally coordinate and guide these

efforts. An elaboration of dictionaries, thesauri and nomenclatures can be centrally established as a reference

point. If necessary references to these semantic assets can also be made in the legislation it is necessary to make

their use mandatory.

The following actions create an organisational support framework to drive semantic interoperability:

- In all major business domains, expert groups are formed with the task of creating and maintaining the respective

business domain’s semantic assets;

- Semantic assets spanning or interacting among multiple domains might require cross-sectorial / cross-domain

expert discussions. So while a multilateral agreement can eventually be reached, working groups represented by

the relevant ministries / departments can create and maintain instructions on the translation/modification of data

objects of one area into those of another area.

- On an international level, the participation in semantic interoperability fora can influence the elaboration of

mutual agreements and semantic gateways for the semantic interoperability between information systems of

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p10

different countries.

Together with the Data Governance Council, public sector organisations are invited to incorporate semantic

considerations when developing public services. This will facilitate the gradual transformation of data to value

adding information.

See NIF Framework, chapter 4, 4.4 organisational support

(http://mita.gov.mt/en/Technology/Initiatives/Interoperability/Documents/NIF_framework.pdf)

See NIF Framework, chapter 4, 4.5.1 Semantic initiatives promoted through the Joinup platform

(http://mita.gov.mt/en/Technology/Initiatives/Interoperability/Documents/NIF_framework.pdf)

NIFO Alignment examples – Interoperability Levels – March 2017 p11

EIF element: Interoperability Levels

Technical interoperability

Public administrations should agree on the formalised specifications to ensure technical interoperability when establishing European public services.

Measurement: Does the NIF encourage public

administrations to agree on the formalised

specification to ensure technical interoperability

when establishing European public services?

EIF reference: EIF, Chapter 4; Interoperability

levels, Recommendation 19

Example 1: Germany

The German SAGA 5.0 (Standards and Architectures for eGovernment applications) classifies the technical

specifications with which the software systems of the Federal Administration must be realized. The use of uniform

specifications is one of the key objectives of SAGA.

The definitions of openness, interoperability and services are incorporated in the creation of SAGA. SAGA's

recommendations are subject to the General principles described in the EIF, provided for European services of

the public administration. This is reflected above all in the objectives of the SAGA. Also the implications of the

recommendations of the EIF with influence on architecture pattern to be used are supported by the classifications

of SAGA. The selection and evaluation of specifications follow the transparent process required by the EIF.

SAGA 5.0; http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Architekturen-und-

Standards/SAGA/saga_modul_tech_spez_de_bund_5_0_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Example 2: Estonia

The Estonian NIF specifies the following sub-frameworks / formal specifications to ensure technical

interoperability:

- Interoperability architecture

- Semantic interoperability

- Open standards

- Software framework

- Document management

- Security framework

- Internet framework (aka Web Framework or Framework of Websites)

https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/riigi_it_koosvoime_raamistik.pdf

https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/riigi_infosusteemide_semantilise_koosvoime_raamistik.pdf