Public Administration Domain Ontology for a Semantic Web Services EGovernment Framework Sotirios K. Goudos1, Nikolaos Loutas1, Vassilios Peristeras2, Konstantinos Tarabanis1,3 1 Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), 57001, Thessaloniki, Greece 2 National University of Ireland, DERI Galway, IDA Business Park, Dangan, Galway, Ireland 3 Information Systems Laboratory, University of Macedonia, 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece {sgoudos,nlout}@uom.gr
[email protected] [email protected] Abstract In this paper we present a generic Public Administration (PA) domain ontology. We define a formal model for a Public Administration service on the basis of the Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). For this purpose we employ the generic public service object model of the Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA) providing PA domain specific semantics. We describe the ontology using the Web Service Modeling Language (WSML).This domain ontology is implemented in order to be used in semantic web services architecture for e-government.
1. Introduction EGovernment is an attractive field for research organizations and businesses as well. Recently, the emphasis is put on the modelling of Public Administration domain, and application of the semantic web technologies to integration of eGovernment systems. Moreover, public administration (PA) has some certain characteristics that differentiate it from the private sector:
• • •
of the e-government domain [2]. Such an ontology is generic enough to cover the overall eGovernment domain while at the same time specific enough to sufficiently model PA specific semantics. Currently, the prevailing approach is to implement e-government services using semantic web service technologies. At the time, there are several well known service models for semantic web services - WSMO, OWL-S [3] and WSDL-S [4], which have different mechanisms to describe service semantics. In this paper we extend our earlier work [5-6]. We present a description of the GEA PA Service model concept using the Web Service Modeling Language (WSML). The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we present related work in the area of eGovernment models and ontologies. Section 3 and section 4 present the GEA PA service model and the Web Service Modeling Ontology Framework respectively. Section 5 has the GEA PA domain Ontology in WSML. Section 6 describes the semantic web services architecture that will use our ontology. Finally, the conclusion and future work are given in section 7.
Public administration (PA) is a diverged and distributed environment layered in clearly defined organizational levels (e.g. local, regional, national).
2. Related Work: E-government models and ontologies
Public administration is hierarchically organized.
In this section, we present related work in modeling the eGovernment domain. These cases refer to attempts to build generic eGovernment representations and models that cover wide application areas and are not restricted to specific cases. We have grouped these initiatives according to the following categories depending on their modeling perspective: Object models, where the modeling effort is focused on identifying the main participating objects and relationships. Two initiatives have been grouped under this category: The UK Government Common Information Model [7], which is a high-level information model for all activities
Public administration is a service industry, with a service production distributed in hundreds of partially independent agencies. This means that Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) paradigms putting the “service” notion at the core of development (e.g. Semantic Web Services) are particularly suitable and fit well with these structural characteristics of the PA domain. The Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA) [1] defines a generic domain model for PA. This model defines common aspects and generic features of the domain, with emphasis on service and process models. Moreover, it constitutes the basis for a reference ontology
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
undertaken by the public sector. It is part of the UK eService Development Framework. The central GCIM concept is the Service Interaction, which embodies the aspects of the particular service instantiation. The DIP eGovernment Ontology [8], which is stated to be “an extensive Ontology that models a wide range of eGovernment and community services and information”. Top-level and holistic models, representing both objects and processes. These are attempts that combine the object and process perspectives and provide holistic models. In this category, we group six initiatives: The three spheres in eGovernance [2]. In this work Grönlund adopts the decomposition of the overall governance system in a democratic government system, proposed by Molin [9], into three zones: Formal Politics, Administration and Civil Society. The Gartner Government Performance Framework (GPF) [10] proposed in 2003 is a tool to assess the value IT can add in a public-sector context. GPF groups all actionable activities for a public-sector organization in three layers: Political Management, Service Supply Management and Support Services. The ONTOGOV service ontology [11] is an eGovernment domain-specific service ontology, or a meta-ontology, proposed by the ONTOGOV IST project. The proposed ontology is heavily based on the two major generic service ontologies, namely OWL-S and WSMO. WebDG Ontologies [12] have been developed done under the Web Digital Government (WebDG) project. In the project ontologies were used to organize government information in order to make automatic composition feasible. The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Ontology [13-14] has been proposed by the USA CIO Council and consists of various approaches, models and definitions for communicating the overall organization and relationships of architecture components required for developing and maintaining a Federal Enterprise Architecture. The eGov project platform [15] which proposed a platform that included governmental portals, the service repository and service creation environment, the Governmental Markup Language (GovML [16]) and the supporting network architecture.
technology-neutral. This means that the GEA models may be applicable to different technological environments. A GEA overview can be found in [17]. The models are presented in detail in [1]. For the purpose of this paper, we focus on the GEA detailed object model for service provision referred to in this paper as the PA Service Model for the sake of brevity. This stems from the fact that this model is directly linked to the representation of a PA service, and thus is most relevant to the work of this paper. PA Entity has Service Provider
Concequence Receiver
Role Evidence Provider
provides
receives
Societal Entity
Public Service
uses
participates in
Service Collaborator
produces Outcome
Input
Consequence
has
is governed b y
has Effect
Other input
has
Evidence Placeholder
Output contains Piece of Evidence
has
Effect Type Law
validates
sets
PA Domain Administrative Level PA Subdomain
Purpose of evidence
Precondition
Figure 1. The GEA PA Service Model The overall object model [5] is presented in Figure 1. A brief textual description follows. Societal Entities (e.g. citizen, business) have Needs related to specific Goals. A Societal Entity requests a Public Administration (PA) Service to serve its Goals. PA Services are categorized in several Domains (e.g. Health, Transportation). Each Domain object is divided into several SubDomain objects (e.g. Domain Transportation has SubDomains Ground Transportation, Air Transportation and Water Transportation). The categorization that we have used is based on the categorization proposed in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) [13-14]. This categorization of PA services is presented in Figure 2.
3. The Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA) Object Model GEA aims at introducing a consistent set of models that constitute the basis for a reference eGovernment domain ontology. This ontology is generic enough to cover the overall eGovernment domain, and at the same time specific enough to sufficiently model PA specific semantics. A key aspect of GEA is that it attempts to be
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
Figure 2. The Public_Service_Domain concept
There are several types of Social Entities (e.g. legal entity, physical person). There are two categories of Governance Entities participating in service provision: Political Entities and Public Administration Entities. Based on the role which PA Entities can acquire during the service execution phase, we identify three roles:
there is no Effect. At the top level, there are three types of Effects expected from the execution of PA services. These have been identified to be the following:
•
Service Provider is the PA Entity that provides the service to the Societal Entities (clients). The PA Entities belong to an Administrative Level (e.g. municipality, regional).
•
Evidence Provider is the PA Entity that provides necessary Evidence to the Service Provider in order to execute the PA Service.
•
• •
Consequence Receiver is the PA Entity that should be informed about a PA Service execution. Political Entities define PA Services. PA Entities through their role of Service Provider offers these services. PA Services are governed by Preconditions usually specified in Legal Acts - Laws. Preconditions set the general framework in which the service should be performed and the underlying business rules that should be fulfilled for the successful execution of the PA Service. Preconditions can be formally expressed as a set of clauses. Preconditions are validated by Piece of Evidence serving a Purpose. As Evidence is primarily pure information, it is stored in Evidence Placeholders, thus the Evidence Placeholder contains Pieces of Evidences. The m:n relationship between the two entities expresses the fact that specific Evidence can be found in numerous different Evidence Placeholders. For example, a citizen’s age, serving as a Piece of Evidence for a service that sets age limitations in its Preconditions, can be contained in the ID card, the passport or the birth certificate. These are considered as alternative Evidence Placeholders. There are many cases where the Evidence Placeholders are provided by PA Entities (Evidence Providers). The direct relationship between PA Service and Evidence Placeholder depicts cases where PA Services preferably use specific types of Evidence Placeholders, e.g. when the law explicitly states that a birth certificate is needed for the execution of a particular service. The Outcome refers to the different types of results a PA Service may have. GEA defines three types of Outcome: Output, which is the documented decision of the Service Provider regarding the service asked by a Societal Entity. This “documented decision” is currently embedded and reaches the client in the form of an administrative document/decision. Effect, which is the change in the state of the real world (e.g. transfer money to an account) caused by the execution of a service. In the PA domain, the service Effect is the actual permission, certificate, restriction or punishment the citizen is finally entitled to. In cases where administration refuses the provision of a service,
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
•
Safeguard the Social Contract; meaning maintain the peaceful coexistence amongst the members of society. Promote Sustainable Development; meaning providing for macro-economic development taking into account sustainability concepts (e.g. environment).
Provide for Social Welfare; meaning enhancing social cohesion by coping with exclusion and poverty. Consequence, which is information about the executed PA Service that needs to be forwarded to interested parties. As an example, in Greece someone can adopt a child through a service provided by the Prefecture of the foster parents’ residence. The municipalities where the foster parents were born will then have to be informed about the event, in order to update their population registries. This is the Consequence of the adoption service. In GEA the following five generic types of public services are identified
• • •
•
Declaration: Through providing public services of declaration type, public administration declares and registers changes in the world state (e.g. marriage) Certification: Through certifications public administration certifies existing states of the world (e.g. issuing birth certificate). Control: PA uses a specific type of public service in order to address this: “Control”. As the offender tends to hide his/her behaviour from PA, the most ordinary type of control is inspections on a periodic or on an impromptu basis. Authorization: Through this type of public services public administration realizes both permissive and support goals.
•
Production: Public administration uses this type of public services in order to produce new public services. In conclusion, from a Model Driven Development (MDD) approach, we may say that the GEA PA Service Model is a “… Computational Independent Model (CIM) describing the business context and business requirements” [18]; in our case, the PA context and requirements.
4. Semantic Web Services Technologies
The state of the art technologies in semantic web services include WSMO and OWL-S [3]. WSMO and OWL-S have different mechanisms to describe service semantics. OWL-S is an ontology of services consisting of three main parts: the service profile for advertising and discovering services; the process model, which gives a detailed description of a service's operation; and the grounding, which provides details on how to interoperate with a service, via messages. Web Service Modelling Ontology (WSMO) conceptual model describes all relevant aspects related to general semantic services by four top-level elements: goals, web services, ontologies and mediators. It has a family of layered logical languages providing rich semantics together with reasoning capabilities (WSML). It also has a set of implementation mechanisms/environments for Web services (e.g. WSMX, IRS-III). A key feature of WSMO that is not supported by other service ontologies like OWL-S, is that it supports both a client’s and a service’s view. GEA also supports both perspectives. Therefore, this was one of the facts that have led to the selection of the WSMO framework for the implementation of the semantic PA web services. Due to the limitation of paper space, for the detailed comparison between the other models we refer to [19] and [20].
4.1 Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) WSMO [20] aims to define a conceptual model for semantic web services and provide a framework for total or partial automation of tasks such as discovery, selection, composition and invocation of services. WSMO has its conceptual basis in the Web Service Modelling Framework (WSMF), refining and extending this framework by developing a formal service model and WSML ontology language [21]. WSMO serves as basis for the Web Service Execution Environment (WSMX) for Semantic Web Services. The Meta-Object Facility (MOF) [22] specification is used to specify this model. MOF defines an abstract language and framework for specifying, constructing, and managing technology neutral metamodels. WSMO identifies four top-level elements as the main concepts, which have to be described in order to define Semantic Web Services: Ontologies provide the terminology used by other WSMO elements describing relevant aspects of domains of discourse. The class ontology in WSMO specification explicitly defines a shared conceptualization, by specifying its attributes, including hasNonFunctionalProperty, importsOntology, usesMediator, hasConcept, hasRelation, hasFunction, hasInstance, and hasAxioms [21].
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
Web services represent computational entities, which are able to provide access to services that, in turn, provide some value in a domain. In WSMO, web service is defined as a class service with attributes, such as importsOntology, usesMediator, hasCapability, hasInterface. All these aspects of a web service are described using the terminology defined by ontologies. Goals describe aspects related to user desires with respect to the requested functionality. The attributes of class goal consist of importsOntology, usesMediator, requestsCapability, and requestsInterface. Again, ontologies can be employed to define the domain terminology used to describe the relevant aspects of goals. Mediators describe elements that handle interoperability problems between different WSMO elements. WSMO defines several types of mediators allowing to resolve incompatibilities on data and process levels as well as allowing to refine goal specifications and map goals to web services.
4.2 Web Service Modeling Language (WSML) The Web Service Modeling Language (WSML) [21] provides a formal syntax and semantics for WSMO. WSML uses various logical formalisms, such as description logics, first-order logic and logic programming, in order to model of Semantic Web Services (SWS). There are five different WSML variants based on these different logical formalisms: WSML-Core, WSML-DL, WSML-Flight, WSML-Rule and WSMLFull. WSML-Core corresponds with the intersection of description logic and horn logic, without function symbols and without equality, extended with datatype support in order to be useful in practical applications. WSML-Core is fully compliant with a subset of OWL [23].WSML-Core is extended, both in the direction of description logics and in the direction of logic programming, to WSML-DL and WSML-Flight. WSML-DL extends WSML-Core to an expressive description logic, namely, SHIQ, thereby covering that part of OWL which is efficiently implementable. WSML-Flight extends WSML-Core in the direction of logic programming. WSML-Flight has a rich set of modeling primitives for modeling different aspects of attributes, such as value constraints and integrity constraints. Furthermore, WSML-Flight incorporates a fully-fledged rule language, while still allowing efficient decidable reasoning. To be more precise, WSML-Flight allows writing down any datalog rule, extended with inequality and (locally) stratified negation. WSML-Rule extends WSML-Flight to a fully-fledged logic programming language, including function symbols.
WSML-Rule no longer restricts the use of variables in logical expressions. WSML-Full unifies all WSML variants under a common first-order umbrella with non-monotonic extensions which allow capturing non-monotonic negation of WSML-Rule. All WSML variants can be described in terms of a normative human-readable, RDF-based or XML based syntax.
3) The PA entity object in the GEA model has three distinct roles, Service_Provider, Evidence_Provider and Consequence_Receiver. These roles are depicted in WSMO using three attributes. For example the Service_Provider role is modeled using the attribute providesServices of the Public_Service concept (the description of the PA_Entity concept in WSML human readable syntax is shown in table 1).
5. PA Domain Reference Ontology in WSML The GEA object model in Figure 1 was shown in a UML class diagram. For simplicity, the model was not shown in its entirety. It is obvious that such a model can be implemented using a relational database. Such an approach would be complex since it would not exploit the advantages of declarative knowledge representation. The main requirement today is to be able to share information through the web for both humans and machines. We have decided to express the GEA model in an ontology language. The WSMO framework for modeling PA services was used. We have built a GEA domain ontology on top of the other established domain-neutral specifications of WSMO. Such a generic GEA ontology can be shared by all elements of the WSMO service model. Every object entity of PA service model is provided by a corresponding ontology concept, their relations, functions, instances and axioms. Our work was based on a recent implementation of the GEA model in OWL DL [24]. In order to be able to fully exploit the capabilities of the WSMO Framework and to build semantic web services for PA we have chosen to express the GEA object model in WSML. It must be pointed out that the lack so far of a steady execution environment in OWL-S [3] was another important reason to use the WSMO framework. The model representation in WSML was the main issue that concerned us. For the WSML implementation we have chosen the WSML-Rule language, which we think that has the expressiveness required. The GEA ontology in WSML has been developed using the Web Services Modeling Toolkit (WSMT) [25]. Figure 3 depicts a visual view of the GEA ontology. All basic GEA concepts are shown in this figure. The basic modeling principles followed were those used in for the OWL implementation [24]. More specifically, the modeling principles followed here were: 1) The GEA model entities were expressed in wsmo concept elements. 2) The relations between entities were expressed in attributes of a concept with the appropriate cardinality restrictions.
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
Figure 3. The GEA Ontology. An important concept for GEA is Evidence_Placeholder. Every document required or produced by the PA is a Evidence_Placeholder. Every Evidence_Placeholder can be Electronic or Physical (subconcepts of Evidence_Placeholder concept). Specific Evidence_Placeholders can be modeled in the following manner: For example consider a Passport Evidence_Placeholder. This is modeled as a subconcept of Physical_Evidence_Placeholder. This subconcept has the attributes of Passport (e.g. Name, Birthplace, PassportNo.). An instance of this concept models the owner of the Passport. This example of Evidence_Placeholder subconcepts is given in table 2. Table 1. PA_Entity concept concept PA_Entity subConceptOf Governance_Entity nonFunctionalProperties dc#description hasValue "A PA entity represents a public administartion agency." endNonFunctionalProperties providesEvidence ofType (1 *) Piece_of_Evidence providesServices ofType (1 *) Public_Service receivesConsequences ofType (1 *) Consequence
The core concept in the GEA PA domain ontology is that of the Public Service. Table 3 has a part of the Public Service concept description in human readable syntax. Figure 4 shows in a graphical manner this concept and its attributes. Table 2. Example of the Evidence_Placeholder concept concept Evidence_Placeholder nonFunctionalProperties dc#description hasValue "The evidence placeholder represents all administrative documents that are either provided as input to a service or produced as output of the service." endNonFunctionalProperties concept Physical_Evidence_Placheloder subConceptOf Evidence_Placeholder nonFunctionalProperties dc#description hasValue Represents an evidence placeholder in physical form, i.e. an id-card, a passport etc." endNonFunctionalProperties concept Electronic_Evidence_Placheloder subConceptOf Evidence_Placeholder nonFunctionalProperties dc#description hasValue "Represents an evidence placeholder in electronic form, i.e. an electronic document." endNonFunctionalProperties concept Passport subConceptOf Physical_Evidence_Placheloder hasOwnerName ofType foaf#name hasOwnerPhoto ofType foaf#Image hasOwnerDateOfBirth ofType(1 1) _date hasOwnerPlaceOfBirth ofType(1 1) Location
Figure 4. The Public Service Concept An Axiom in WSML is considered to be a logical expression together with its non-functional properties, which are widely used in the definition part of other WSMO elements. For example an axiom is given in Table 4. This axiom expresses the fact that every Public Service concept can have in its hasPublicServiceType attribute one of five distinct values e.g Authorization, Control, Production, Declaration and Certification.
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
Table 3. The Public Service concept concept Public_Service nonFunctionalProperties dc#description hasValue “Represents a service provided by public administration” dc#relation hasValue {Public_Service1} endNonFunctionalProperties hasClientType ofType (1 *) Societal_Entity hasPADomain ofType(1 1) PA_Service_Domain hasPASubDomain ofType(1 1) PA_Service_SubDomain hasEffectType ofType(1 1) PA_Service_Effect_Type hasLocation ofType (1 *) Location hasAdministrationLevel ofType (1 1) Administration_Level hasPublicServiceType ofType (1 1) PA_Service_Type
Table 4. Sample Axiom axiom Public_Service1 nonFunctionalProperties dc#relation hasValue Public_Service endNonFunctionalProperties definedBy !- ?x memberOf Public_Service and ?x[hasPublicServiceType hasValue ?y1] and (?y1=Authorization or ?y1=Control or ?y1 = Production or ?y1=Certification or ?y1 = Declaration).
6. Semantic Web Services Architecture for Egovernment The ontology presented earlier will be used in the SemanticGov architecture as a generic PA domain ontology. SemanticGov aims at building the infrastructure (software, models, services, etc) necessary for enabling the offering of Semantic Web Services by Public Administration (PA) both at national and at European level. From this description, it becomes apparent that: • Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) Architecture • Modelling and ontologies – Modelling/Knowledge • Semantic Web Services (SWS) Technologies are the main scientific and technology areas that SemanticGov project belongs to and intends to exploit and contribute to in order to address semantic interoperability issues in PA service provision at national and Pan-European levels. In a nutshell, in our research agenda, we perceive PA domain and service ontologies as the basic knowledge infrastructure upon which a Service
Oriented Architecture is deployed. This architecture will be implemented with Semantic Web Service technologies. The ontology conceptual architecture required is shown in Figure 5. The PA domain conceptual model is derived from existing PA models like GEA. The PA Domain reference ontology presented earlier uses the PA domain conceptual model and may use concepts from other ontologies. For example a location ontology, a time ontology or an upper level ontology like PROTON [26]. PROTON exists in OWL Lite so in order to import it in a WSML ontology a WSMO mediator service is required. The WSMO-PA semantic web service is created using concepts from the PA Domain reference ontology and the WSMO framework. These are the generic ontologies used in every service.
reasons have lead us to express this ontology in WSML. The fact that the WSMO framework provides a steady execution environment (WSMX) [29] is one reason. The second is the fact that WSMO supports both a client (using wsmo goal) and a service (using wsmo service) perspective which is useful in modeling the PA domain. The PA domain features are of interest to the SW research since the PA domain can provide an ideal test bed for the SW research, and SW technologies can be an ideal platform to achieve the vision of a knowledgebased, citizen-centric, and citizen-empowering, distributed and integrated e-Government. The first step towards this vision is to develop formal PA service models as well as PA information models to be used as underlying formalisms in SW and SWS environments. The described PA service model using WSMO will be the underlying specification for PA service provisioning built on WSMX. In particular, in our SemanticGov research project, WSMX will serve as an execution environment for PA service provisioning in national and pan-European e-government contexts.
8. Acknowledgements
Figure 5. The SemanticGov ontology logical structure For every specific PA service specific ontologies are created as instances or expansions or the generic ontologies (depicted in blue boxes in Figure 5). A specific PA domain ontology will import the reference PA Domain ontology and create the new concepts required as subconcepts of the original GEA concepts. For example for a Driving Licence Issuance public service a new subconcept of Physical_Evidence_Placheloder is required with attributes of a driving license (owner, expiration data e.t.c).To model John Smith’s driving license an instance of this concept will be created. A driving license web service is also required having specific preconditions and postconditions. For example the fact that a driver must always be an adult is expressed with a specific WSMO axiom. Moreover, we have presented the WSMO-PA Service ontology in previous works [27- 28].
7. Conclusion- Future Work In this paper we have shown how a generic PA service model can be expressed by means of WSML - a fully fledged logic programming language for describing Semantic Web Services. This PA domain reference ontology will play an important role in a semantic web services environment for e-government. Two main
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
This paper is supported in part by the SemanticGov project (FP6-2004-IST-4-027517; http://www.semanticgov.org). The authors wish to thank Adrian Mocan, Tomas Vitvar and Atanas Kiryakov for working together in the SemanticGov project.
9. References [1] V. Peristeras, The Governance Enterprise Architecture - GEA - for Reengineering Public Administration, in Business Administration, University of Macedonia: Thessaloniki, 2006. [2] A. Grunlund, What’s In a Field – Exploring the eGoverment Domain, Proceedings of 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2005. [3] D. Martin et al. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. [W3C Member Submission] 2005 22 Nov. 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/overview/ [4] R. Akkiraju et al.,Web Service Semantics - WSDL-S, A joint UGA-IBM Technical Note, version 1.0, April 18, 2005. [5] V. Peristeras, K. Tarabanis, The Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA) Object Model, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3035, 2004, pp. 101110.
[6] V. Peristeras, K. Tarabanis, Advancing the Government Enterprise Architecture - GEA: The Service Execution Object Model, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3183, 2004, pp. 476-482. [7] Office of e-Envoy UK. e-Services Development Framework Primer v1.0b. 2002 [cited Noe 2002]; Available from: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/eSDFprimerV1b.p df.
[19] A. Polleres, R. Lara (editors), A Conceptual Comparison between WSMO and OWL-S, WSMO Working Group working draft, 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d4/d4.1/v0.1/] [20] D. Roman, H. Lausen, U. Keller, Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO), Technical report, WSMO Final Draft. 2005, [cited; Available from: http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.2/]
[8] G. Nagypal, , J. Lemcke, D3.3: A Business Data Ontology. DIP project deliverable, 2004.
[21] Bruijn, d.J. et al, The Web Service Modeling Language WSML. Technical report, WSML Working Draft, 2005, [cited; Available from: http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d16/d16.1/v0.2/]
[9] Molin, B., L. Månsson, and L. Strömberg, Offentlig förvaltning (Public Administration), Bonniers, 1975.
[22] The Object Management Group, Meta-Object Facility, version 1.4, 2002.
[10] Gartner, New Performance Framework Measures Public Value of IT. Research Note, Vol.8, 2003.
[23] Dean M. et al., OWL web ontology language reference, W3C Recommendation, 2004, [online] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
[11] D. Apostolou, L. Stojanovic et al., Towards a Semantically-Driven Software Engineering Environment for eGovernment, LNAI, 2005, Vol. 3416, pp. 157 –168. [12] B. Medjahed, et al., Infrastructure for EGovernment Web Services, IEEE Internet Computing Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 58-65. [13] CIO Council, Federal Architecture Enterprise Framework v.1.1, 1999, [cited 5 Sep. 2002]; Available from: http://www.cio.gov/Documents/fedarch1%2Epdf. [14] TopQuadrant, FEA Refererence Model Ontologies (FEA RMO) v1.1, 2005. [15] E. Tambouris, An Integrated Platform for Realising One-Stop Government: The eGOV project, Proceedings of the DEXA International Workshop “On the Way to Electronic Government”, IEEE Press, pp. 359363. [16] E. Tambouris et al., The Governmental Markup Language (GovML), Journal of E-Government, Vol. 1, No 2, 2004, pp. 59-70. [17] V. Peristeras, K. Tarabanis, Governance enterprise architecture (GEA): domain models for e-governance, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2004. [18] ATHENA Project, D.A6.1, Specification of a Basic Architecture Reference Model, 2005.
2007 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007) 0-7695-2925-9/07 $25.00 © 2007
[24] S. K. Goudos, V. Peristeras, K. Tarabanis, Mapping Citizen Profiles to Public Administration Services Using Ontology Implementations of the Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA) models, Proceedings of 3rd Annual European Semantic Web Conference, 2006, pp. 25-37. [25] M. Kerrigan, Web Service Modeling Toolkit (WSMT), 2005, [cited; Available from: http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d9/d9.1/v0.2/20050425/ [26] I. Terziev et al., D 1.8.1. Base upper-level ontology (BULO) Guidance, report EU-IST Integrated Project (IP) IST-2003-506826 SEKT), 2004. [27] V. Peristeras, A.Mocan, T. Vitvar, S. Nazir, S. Goudos, K. Tarabanis, Towards Semantic Web Services for Public Administration based on the Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) and the Governance Enterprise Architecture (GEA), Proceedings of International EGOV Conference 2006 (DEXA), Poland, Trauner Verlag, Electronic Government, 2006, pp.155162. [28] X. Wang, T. Vitvar, A. Mocan, V. Peristeras, S. K. Goudos, K. Tarabanis, WSMO-PA: Formal Specification of Public Administration Service Model on Semantic Web Service Ontology, Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-40, Hawaii, USA, 2007. [29] A. Haller et al., WSMX - A Semantic ServiceOriented Architecture, Proceedings of International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2005), 2005.
