Highlights - ABR Webinar 09-10-19
The presentation is available here: ABR Webinar 20191009 - Webinar presentation
The recording is accessible here: ABR Webinar 20191009 - video recording
One of the key elements of the ISA2 Action on Access to Base Registries (ABR) is to exchange best practices among the Member States (MS) that are working on the base registries interconnection.
This webinar aimed to encourage participants from different MS to share their experiences, challenges and solutions, from which other MS can inspire in their work on base registries.
Progress on specification/ data model for registry of registries (RoR) was also presented in this webinar, and topics on the framework on base registries access and interconnection (BRAIF) were discussed.
Presentations from MS on their base registries
Access to Base Registries in Belgium
Check the presentation to discover the current state of affairs in Belgium and main challenges:
ABR Webinar 20191009 - Presentation Belgium
Highlights on discussion between participants:
In Belgium, there are 3 official languages. For the documentation part, RDF allows multilingual labels, etc., but (meta)data providers are responsible for the translation.
Data exchange itself is in place for several years, via "service integrators", some additional information on data exchange could be consulted here: https://dt.bosa.be/en/gegevensuitwisseling.
In terms of legal differences, for the data exchange itself there is a legal framework, and often the regions and the Federal State have a specific cooperation agreement to work on a specific authoritative (mandatory) base registry. There are discussions on what is mandatory to use at what level, e.g. if the region wants to recognize a base registry as "authoritative", and the Federal State does not agree.
RegiX – Registry Information Exchange System in Bulgaria
Check the presentation to discover the current state of affairs in Bulgaria and next plans:
ABR Webinar 20191009 - Presentation Bulgaria
Highlights on discussion between participants:
In Bulgaria, the term "base registry" is not present in the government system. Every administrative authority is the owner of the data, which appear for the first time in their databases. Thus, there is a need to address the term "base registers" in the government system.
In Spain, the case is very similar to Bulgaria. Each public authority has some competences and creates a registry to officially store the information they manage as a result of such competences. The legislation regulates the scope of the competences, and their registries are official administrative registries that are subject to Security and Data Protection regulation.
Base Registries DCAT-AP as a standard of RoR Specification
The DCAT Application profile for base registries in Europe is an extension of DCAT-AP for describing base registries, the base information they contain, as well as the services they provide.
The latest version of the specification/ data model could be consulted here.
• ABR Working Group launched in March 2019
• 3 WG meetings, 25 members from 21 countries
• 8 main issues discussed on Joinup and via email
• Feedback from CPSV-AP, SDG, and other EU initiatives
• Aligned to DCAT 2 (and DCAT-AP 2)
• Ongoing discussion open to everyone
Join us: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/solution/abr-specification-registry-registries/
Inputs to the work are encouraged on Joinup page, as well as bilateral communication is highly encouraged through email: ABR@trasysinternational.com.
Framework on Base Registries Access and Interconnection (BRAIF)
ABR Team opened discussions on Joinup for each of the presented topics, and warmly welcome the audience to comment on the proposed topics and questions:
BRAIF - Framework - Your opinion on the proposed conceptual model
BRAIF - Framework - Your opinion on Data and Technical Architecture
BRAIF - Your opinion on Data Governance, Quality, Security
BRAIF - Framework - Your opinion on Metadata Management
BRAIF - Framework - Your opinion on Master Data Management
Highlights on the discussions between participants:
Data Governance:
In Spain, there is no registry of registries, but there is a platform for interconnection of the registries. The platform is built based on the four dimensions of interoperability governance, namely, legal, organisational, semantic, and technical.
First, the laws established the legal obligation to the public administrations to share the information, in context of Once-Only principle, but focusing on citizens. Then the semantic specification was created, and the platform was built on the national level. There are still autonomous communes that have their own intermediation platforms, but all the platforms are interconnected among them. From organisational point of view, the authority (here – owner of the platform) is a final responsible for the security of personal information of citizens. This authority established bilateral agreements between the public body – the consumer of the data - and the public body – the provider of the data. The agreements are handled by a platform manager, both in terms of technical and organisational intermediation.
Currently, there is an increase in a number of consumers and providers to exchange the information.
Data Architecture:
In Netherlands, there are 10 base registries appointed by law, which are the owners of the data, responsible for their own processes, data quality, etc. The registries provide the data to a central system, namely, Stelselcatalogus, which plays a role of a metadata collector. Therefore, there are no common principles or guidelines on data architecture.
Among challenges, e.g. some data is defined differently in different base registries or the structure of base registries differ one from another.
Currently, the focus is on collecting as much data as possible, thus everyone can see the differences between base registries. The plan is to start gradually work on common definitions. Standardisation would occur when more and more data is combined over all registries. Currently, the translations are offered, from the registries to general definitions on the main objects, which will be connected to EU standard definitions.
Metadata management:
In Netherlands, there are several standards all registries follow, including address standards. But going beyond those standards there is still work to do, e.g. naming conventions or proper descriptions for every element, or even the entity/property structure in one case.
In Belgium, this is treated case-by-case, see an example about "Belgian addresses", namely, service at federal state accessing base registries at the 3 regions: https://dtservices.bosa.be/sites/default/files/content/best_overview.pdf
Data Quality:
In Belgium, data quality is considered one of the important topics on data management.
Here are some examples of data quality improvement: https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/crossroads-bank-enterprises/data-quality.
Other Q&A highlights:
In terms of technical tools to facilitate creation of RoR in the future, the participants emphasised the need of the specification/ data model (BRegDCAT-AP) and a tool for its validation (SHACL).
What’s Next?
Finalise specification/ data model – testing and validation in 2020
Follow the progress on data model here: ABR – Specification of Registry of Registries
Finalise Framework – validation in 2020
Follow the progress on framework here: ABR Collection on Joinup
Create tools reusable by MS in their work on creation of RoR – in 2020
...and continuous exchange of experiences on RoR creation !
Should you have any questions, please share them with ABR team on ABR@trasysinternational.com.