Check highlights from ABR webinar on 29 June 2020 !

ABR Webinar Highlights - June 2020

Published on: 10/07/2020
Last update: 17/12/2020
News

Highlights  - ABR Webinar June 2020

The presentation is available here: ABR Webinar 20200629 - Webinar presentation

The recording is accessible here: ABR Webinar 20200629 - video recording

The Project Officer (PO) from the European Commission, Mr. Peter Burian, made an introduction to the  ISA2 Action 2016.28 on Access to Base Registries, and presented the scope of current year, with expected outcomes and benefits for Member States (MS).

Expected outcomes of ABR Action in 2020:

  • The semantic specification BRegDCAT-AP and supporting open source tools, facilitating share and reuse of open data and further creation of European Registry of Base Registries (ERBR); 
  • The Framework (BRAIF) and Guidelines, supporting MS on how to grant access to the data in Base Registries and how to interconnect them;
  • The exchange of Best Practices that is of great interest for MS, including sharing and reuse of solutions on ABR Catalogue of Solutions on ABR Collection on Joinup.

The PO encouraged participants to share their experiences from different MS how the work on base registries is organised in their countries, their challenges and solutions, from which other MS can inspire in their work on base registries.

The PO emphasised that this input will be useful to ABR Team to validate the Framework based on real use-cases, and improve it based on received comments, aiming to become a useful document for MS work on base registries and their interconnection.

 

Presentations from MS on their base registries

EU flag Finland

 X-Road - The Open Source Data Exchange Layer

 ABR Webinar 20200629 - Presentation NIIS (Finland)

 

Check the presentation to discover X-Road, the data-exchange layer, open source solution that provides a secured and standardised way to exchange data between organisations, as well as the role of Nordic Institute of Interoperability Solutions (NIIS): 

Highlights on on Q&A:

  • Standardisation of X-Road: it is an open-source solution that defines its own protocol, that is not based on any official standards, but it utilises standards in its implementation like HTTP, TCP, etc. On application level, X-Road has its own protocol that has not been standardised; all protocols are documented and publicly available, and anyone can implement its own version of X-Road.
  • Mapping and gateway between X-Road and eDelivery domain: there are some legal and semantic challenges related to the organisational identifiers, and there is already technical proof of concept, but there is a need for real use-cases for those challenges.
  • eDelivery building block is built on asynchronous messaging, while X-Road only supports synchronous messaging, and that difference can be resolved by custom adapter service component (part of a gateway).
  • The gateway can be implemented nationally, e.g. Finland that has national X-Road eco-system, would implement this gateway solution, and all X-Road user organisations can access eDelivery policy domains that are connected to this solution without a need for them to implement any component related to gateway.

Eu Flag Netherlands Access to Dutch Base registries within the Justice Department (JUSTID)

ABR Webinar 20200629 - Presentation JUSTID (Netherlands)

 

Check the presentation to discover the information about Dutch Base Registries, and how they are used within Justice Department in Netherlands, details on the role of Justicial Information Service and Base Registries Communication Service (BCS):

Highlights on Q&A:

  • Lessons learned on what would be changed if today there would not be the current solution and activities of IT department in JUSTID: if to start from scratch with all the experience gained, generally speaking a good approach would be to make the solution digital from the beginning, making one central database with data, especially, with the authorisation structure already incorporated into this central database, thus, modern and efficient from the beginning.
  • BCS is not yet used cross-border, as there have not been such plans, and there is an international exchange within Justice network.
  • Cross-border collaboration based on BCS is feasible: the base registries owners need to give permissions to the interested government to be authorised to have the data, and also the connection with the Justice department' network should be established to have access to the data.

Framework on Base Registries Access and Interconnection (BRAIF)

The Contractor Project Manager (CPM) from Trasys International, Ms. Ksenia Bocharova, presented the current stable version of Framework on Base Registries Access and Interconnection (BRAIF), its structure and content, and invited participants to read and comment on the document.

CPM presented the context of Framework, its conceptual model, the facts about its elaboration, and continued with proposal on several topics that raise the most interest from MS, based on the ABR Team experience in collaboration with MS (see below).

CPM noted that Framework is a high-level paper linked to Guidelines document, that will showcase good-practice examples from MS, EU institutions and different organisations to consult and reuse, and recommendations from ABR Action.

The participants have been invited to share use-cases from their MS and raise questions on the presented topics.

Highlights on the discussion:

Set-up of Data Governance model & Data Policies:

  • In Italy, there is a national code for digital administrations that establishes which are databases of national interest and which are the administrations in charge of each of such databases, thus, there are base registries with information of national interest, e.g. a national resident population registry, the registry of tax administration, etc., and each administration is responsible for the maintenance of data and giving legal value to the data that they maintain; Interoperability between administrations and interconnection of registries are in place.
  • In Germany, there is a challenge regarding governance of project vs operational constraints, and one example of solution is that European Commission has persistent URI Identifiers to overcome this challenge of projects having started and ended, thus, the gap between projects and maintenance; link: https://data.europa.eu/URI.html; the suggestions for the document will be made on Joinup (e.g. GDPR mentions the "consent" of a person, and the term "consent" should be used in this document).
  • In Spain, there is no overall legislation for base registries, and every competence authority regulates the access to their own data, thus, the governance is based on protocol and platform, as a central point of the services that are offered to other competent authorities to procedures, and the procedures are registered across the governance functionality, where the data services can be consumed provided by the platform and offered by these competence authorities. The trust is centralised to the broker, and the audits are also centralised to the broker, but the way how the data is exposed and which information is shared, and which are the conditions to ask for that data are under the regulation of the competent authority. In this case there is a fully distributed systems of organisational and legal dimensions, but a centralised one for the competent authorities and the procedures.
  • Belgium suggested to have in Framework or as a guidance how to overcome the challenge of having many units of command and establishing the flows of data going across them, i.e. shared data governance: even if legally each actor has its own smaller scope, e.g. city has its scope, MS has its scope, EU has its scope, it would be needed to see how all actors collaborate with each other. The ABR team made a brief to participants that recommendations and best practice examples from various MS will be included into Guidelines document, that will be released by the end of the year. 

Ensuring Data Quality and use of Metrics:

  • In Finland and Estonia, both countries have their own structures for managing data quality, and also data semantics, etc. When it comes to exchange of data, Estonian and Finnish administrations need to make the mapping of data. Thus, the data policies are managed on the national level, and are fully independent of X-Road. In context of X-Road, it transfers everything that is sent to it, and it doesn't verify the content, from that point of view the data quality is out of scope for X-Road and data providers are responsible for it.
  • In Netherlands, and other countries as well, there is also a responsibility of 'data subject' to ensure that the provided data is correct, e.g. there is an obligation to report on a move to another address to the relevant authorities and base registries. What is usually missing from frameworks regarding data quality is the functionality or service on the base registries that enables people to report errors, i.e. there is no highlight on an error. The suggestion for Framework is to add a recommendation to create an interoperable service at least to report on errors, and ABR team will keep this recommendation for practical guidelines document.
  • In Belgium, Flanders, one of the standard created in OSLO Framework is about notifications and feedback provided to a topic, to the right organisation, thus, it is a general data standard. If someone has some comments on a topic to a topic distributor that has to be implemented, and it will guide toward the right base registry or responsible. Thus, the user who has a comment, doesn't deposit the topic by himself. Link: https://data.vlaanderen.be/doc/applicatieprofiel/notificatie-basis/.

Simplification of processes and implementation of common standards (Data Architecture):

  • SDG / TOOP project, which goal is to enable Once-Only principle, i.e. sharing the data between all data providers on a wider scope than only base registries, collaborates closely with ABR project to reuse and implement BRegDCAT-AP - application profile of DCAT-AP for Base Registries (outcome of ABR Action), to describe the metadata that data providers have for data consumers. BRegDCAT-AP represents a common standard, and both project have a common understanding and common model that can be used to describe which data the data providers offer to interested competent authorities. Thus, there is an interoperable way to describe the data and to exchange the data between these data providers. ABR project also covers the technical level, on how to exchange the data in a secure manner, and its outputs are partially used to implement SDG.

Other highlights:

The webinar concluded that the Framework presents a solid version. ABR team will map the use cases received from MS, and implement the comments from webinar, open discussions on Joinup, and any feedback received via email, and produce the final version by the end of the year.

What’s Next?

Finalise specification/ data model – testing and validation in July 2020

Follow the progress on data model here: ABR – Specification of Registry of Registries 

Create reusable supporting tools to implement the specification  - publication August 2020

Finalise Framework – validation in 2020: ABR Team invites you to comment on Framework on Joinup 

...and continuous exchange of experiences on base registries and RoR creation !

 

Follow overall project progress here: ABR Collection on Joinup

Should you have any questions, please feel free to share them with ABR team on ABR@trasysinternational.com.