Supporting material for the working group (WG) meeting: Presentation.

This WG meeting gathered 39 participants from 16 Member States (MS).

Welcoming note from Ksenia Bocharova (Project Manager, Trasys International) and Peter Burian (Project Officer, the EC).

Martin Alvarez - Espinar (ABR WG Leader) presented the objectives of the WG and the timeline of activities for this year.

Updates on BRegDCAT-AP:

Martin presented updates on BRegDCAT-AP since v1.00. 

The latest version of the document v1.02 is located here.

Participants held a conversation about suitability of the presented model.

? As in previous meetings, there have been some comments rejecting Data Cube approach due to its statistic-oriented nature (3 from 16 represented MS, namely, Sweden (M. Pallmer), Czech Republic (J. Klimek) and Italy (G. Lodi)). ABR team noted that last year it was discussed in WG that this vocabulary can be used also to represent primary data, and it’s inclusion into the specification is based mainly on requirements of SDG / TOOP. Participants have shared some examples, but have not shared clear alternatives to it.

Sweden (M. Palmer) suggested the feasibility of using profiles vocabulary: [https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof/] as a complement to DataCube.

Action: ABR team will open a discussion on Joinup, and meeting participants are invited to share concrete examples of data structures of base registries that cannot be described using Data Cube Vocabulary, and propose alternatives. If needed, a separate meeting will be held on this topic. The previewed deadline to close the discussion is the 15th of May.

? Germany (S. Sklarss) commented on the completeness of the model and would need more concepts, thus what is needed in addition can be seen here on page 22.

Action: ABR team will analyse the shared needs and take it first bilaterally with Germany to discuss the feasibility of additional concepts to the specification that might be optional.

? Germany (S. Sklarss) asked if UML will be available for BRegDCAT-AP v1.02 and future versions.

Action: The ABR team will create and share together with docx version.

? Three participants proposed to move discussions on the model to Github, similar to DCAT-AP.

Answer: Given that all discussions from last year have been handled on Joinup for its public availability, transparency and accessibility of usage for all interested parties, the WG will continue to use it. Moreover, this year the aim is to fine-tune the model and resolve the last issues, aiming to finalise and validate the specification by end of June. Thus, just for last minor changes it is not feasible to move all previous discussions on Github. Although, ABR Team will use Github for the development of web tools, and will make reference to it on Joinup.

Proposal of Reusable Tools:

Based on the needs and requirements from WG meetings last year, ABR team elaborated a proposal on four web-based tools to help Member States reusing and implementing BRegDCAT-AP. The approach is to reuse & adapt CPSV-AP, ISA Interoperability Testbed and other applicable tools.

Participants have been asked if they have any other needs and how they consider the proposal. With no objections, the proposal was accepted.

The following tools will be developed and offered to MS as open source web tools:

• Creator: A web editor where final users may describe registries and data, with the possibility to export the RFD document with the proper format and using the specification.
• Editor: A tool that helps registry operators to edit the information represented in RDF and BRegDCAT-AP using a web form.
• Mapping Editor: A web editor to generate mappings between existing vocabularies to describe registries and the BRegDCAT-AP specification.
• Data Harvester: A tool that will collect several BRegDCAT-AP descriptions and represent them in a unified description and visualisation.

? Sweden (M. Palmer): The CPSV-AP Editor [the base of the BReg-DCAT-AP editor] uses the RDF forms library for editing metadata which he is the main developer of, so they harvest just by loading an RDF file over HTTP in Sweden (DCAT-AP).

Action: ABR Team will liaise with M. Palmer to collaborate on this matter.

? Representative of TOOP / SDG (S. Fieten) asked, if there is an API specification how the Harvester would get the metadata of the registries?

Answer: The ABR team will add this requirement to the list for this tool and explore it.

? Czech Republic (J. Klimek) proposed one use case, i.e. to be able to link a BRegDCAT-AP representation of a base registry to open data published from that registry catalogued e.g. in the European Data Portal or a national open data portal, e.g. through a dcat:Relationship. Any plans on that?

Answer: This need is new to the planned use cases, and ABR Team will explore its feasibility.

? Germany (S. Sklarss): SDG implementation moved on in Member States and creates new requirements towards ABR-DCAT. therefore a ticket will be created to suggest additional properties like (just an excerpt: planned developments of the register audit functions information on the web about the register possible use of register.

Answer: This need is new to the covered use cases, and ABR Team will explore it.

Pilot:

WG participants and other interested representatives of public administrations of MS  are invited to test the model and future web tools with real information.

Within the scope of the pilot, ABR team will support up to 5 MS to implement proof of concepts. Moreover, with the open metadata received from piloting MS it’s aimed to try to simulate a Registry of Registries (RoR) on EU level with limited set of data, to check its feasibility.

In the coming weeks, the ABR team will start the conversations with the interested parties.

Potential candidates for pilot that have been active in WG last year have been invited to share their experiences on work with ABR Team: Norway and Spain.

Participants shared their opinions that it is very good to have experiences from pilot implementations shared with MS, to learn from them and apply good practices.

? Lithuania (G. Astromskas): Lithuania has an official RoR (registrai.lt) and asked how to get help to convert it to BRegDCAT-AP, as well as if possible to test the tools online.

Answer: ABR Team can support the adaptation of the model within the pilot, and the tools will be available online as open-source, for testing.

? Representative of SDG / TOOP (S. Fieten) asked if it is previewed to do mappings between concepts / datasets of the different MS? That would create a lot of mappings to be maintained.

Answer: This is outside the scope of the project and pilot. The aim is to reuse the model and relevant tools to try them with the data from piloting MS, also models from MS against the BRegDCAT-AP model that would become a standard in the future in EU.

? Czech Republic (T. Sedivec) asked if ABR team plans any directive for ABR or law enforcements, e.g. mandatory notification of changes about persons, given local use case with changes of data for foreigners.

Answer: ABR team doesn’t take any legal action, as the project is under DG DIGIT (informatics), but ABR PO will try to contact colleagues from DG JUST (Justice) responsible for legal actions.

? Representative of DE4A project (I. Shah) noted that some MS already have RoRs specification that were created through DCAT-AP and asked how they can benefit from BRegDCAT-AP tools in terms of RoR specification.

Answer: BRegDCAT-AP is an application profile of the DCAT-AP, and it is elaborated to be specific for base registries to achieve / improve interoperability of individual base registries, while aligned with SDG / TOOP, it enables the federation of registries of a country.  More specific, it may help to identify the public body and the specific contact point that runs the registry.

It is, indeed, fully compatible with DCAT-AP, but it offers specific concepts to describe data contained in base registries. Although, DCAT-AP team and its WG are still working on fine-tuning of v2.00, thus, ABR team aims to keep the BRegDCAT-AP model according to any changes in DCAT-AP.

Moreover, the BRegDCAT-AP model is aimed to become a standard model, and after testing and piloting in first Member States (MS), the EC previews its implementation in other MS. The aim is sharing and reuse of good practices, leading to standardisation of practices on EU level.

On a long-term, the development of a European Registry of Base Registries (ERBR) is previewed based on BRegDCAT-AP - that will harmonise the existing registries of registries. The ERBR will enable a one-stop-platform for citizens, business and public bodies to access and manage base registries across the European Union and across different domains.

BRegDCAT-AP’ adaptation at earliest stage allows a MS to benefit also from the technical support of ABR team.

As mentioned during presentation of the proposed reusable tools, they are aimed to support MS with the implementation and adaptation of the model. For instance, by using a Mapping Editor a MS could compare their model with BRegDCAT-AP, receiving inconsistencies as a result. Thus, based on those results a MS could improve their model to become more interoperable and standard, for future harmonisation with ERBR.

Exchange of good practices between MS:

Sweden (M. Palmer): There is a platform (EntryScape) that has support for DCAT-AP2.0.0 and also partial support for BRegDCAT-AP (work in progress).

Poland (A. Tomala): Poland is collecting information about public administration IT systems in: https://sist.itl.waw.pl/ .The data are sensitive, so access to this register is limited, and user has to have account and log in.

Lithuania (G. Astromskas): An oficial RoR: registrai.lt.

Malta (J. Azzopardi, MITA): Malta’s register of registers: https://open.data.gov.mt/registers.html?type=footer

Czech Republic (J. Klimek): register of all information systems (including Base registries):: https://rpp-ais.egon.gov.cz/AISP/verejne/isvs/zobrazeni-isvs

Norway (J. Yang): Norwegian national data catalog: https://fellesdatakatalog.digdir.no/