experiences of the development of the hungarian
TRANSCRIPT
Experiences of the development of the Hungarian Interoperability Framework
Dr. Balazs Goldschmidt, Szabolcs Szigeti
Public Administration Centre of Information TechnologyBudapest University of Technology and Economics
Workshop: Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernmentFebruary 17, 2010 - Brussels, Belgium
Overview
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 2
• Context• SOA architecture• Conformance tests• Comparing e-government to
enterprises• Conclusions
Who we are
• Hungary - Budapest• Budapest University of Technology and Economics
– Public Administration Centre of Information Technology (BME IK)
• New Hungary Development Plan (2007-13)– Supported by EU– Priority 6: State reform
• Implementation– State Reform Operational Programme (SROP, ~170 M
EUR)– Electronic Administration Operational Programme (EAOP,
~420 M EUR)
Project: Hungarian e-Government Framework
• SROP project– Consortium-leader: BME IK– Requirements and experimental pilots behind
• Similar to FA, EIF, SAGA, etc.• Requirements for e-Gov developments• Obligatory, proposed, optional, prohibited• Content
– Interoperability (technical and semantic)– IT security– Process-management– Development methodology and framework– Project management– Audit (products and services)
Solution: SOA
• Proposed architecture for HeGF– SOA-based integration– E-government Service Bus
• Why SOA– Standards– International trend– Wide variety of products and tools– Loosely coupled organizations
• Why bus– Standards for everybody - extendable– Manageable connections– Less conversion
Is SOA Mature Enough?
• High number of independent organizations• High number of SOA standards with numerous options for
each• High number of products
• Interoperability – based on standards• What about SOA products interoperability?
– Are products compliant with standards?– Can different products communicate to each other?– Are development-artifacts reusable in an other product
(portability)?– How to select products for interoperability?
• Tests at the end of 2008
Compliance by products
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 7
Compliance by standards
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 8
Interoperability by products
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 9
Interoperability by standards
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 10
Maturity Results
• Tests are limited – time (end of 2008)– coverage (only major vendors)
• Some products are mature enough for e-government use
• The test-methodology seems to be applicable and relevant
e-Government vs. e-Business
heterogeneous systems in different levels of sophistication -> well defined rules, open standards are a must
homogeneous system
-> single vendor, no real need for standards compliance
heterogeneous vocabulary (ontology) -> need for semantic interoperability. Who is responsible?
homogeneous vocabulary (ontology) -> parties understanding each other (more or less)
heterogeneous management -> need for consensus; separate bus, manage connections not services
homogeneous management -> clear responsibilities
legal burdens -> reflection to legal issues (privacy, etc)
legal burdens -> free enterprise
Conclusion: adding the 'e' with SOA
• SOA maturing, but still fresh– reliable, already standardized, no significant
variance
• enterprise experiences might help– be aware of differences!
• solving above problems might solve other problems in PubAdm
• modularity is built in, also key for dynamic evolution
17.02.2010 Service Oriented Architecture pushed to the limit in eGovernment 14
Thank you!