Contrasting Styles for Semantic Government
From DocWiki
Similar to different styles and patterns in software programming, there is not a single (nor best, depending on circumstance) way to approach becoming a semantic government.[1]
This article contrasts two styles. The more traditional and familiar one is comprehensive, complete and “engineered” in its approach. The second, and emerging style, is more adaptive and incremental, an "open" approach. The use and applicability of either approach is really a function of objectives and circumstances. There is a gradient — or spectrum — of possible approaches between these contrasting styles. By understanding these differences it should be easier to place your own organization at the right points along this spectrum.
A Spectrum of Advantages and Differences
The general idea of semantics in government precedes the use of the term, having been somewhat captured before by the ideas of enterprise application integration, enterprise information integration and other concepts even related to data federation and data warehousing stretching back to the 1980s. However, as a specific label, the first mentions occurred in the late 1990s, with more concerted attention beginning from about 2002 or so onward.
The early understandings were on things like automated reasoning, machine-aided decision making, aspects of artificial intelligence, and so forth. Often, the early emphasis was on “big changes” and possible disruptions.
With recent developments and successes, an alternative model is now emerging. We can now balance our understanding of what it means to be a semantic government. We can contrast the characteristics of the two approaches or styles as follows:
| Characteristics of the Comprehensive, ‘Engineered’ Style | Characteristics of the Open Style |
|
|
Note we have labeled the conventional approach as the “comprehensive, engineering” style; its contrast is the “open” style.
Though the table above contrasts many points, there are two main distinctions to the adaptive approach. First, it firmly embraces the open world assumption. OWA is key to an incremental, “learn as you go” deployment that is also well suited to incorporation of external information. The second main distinction is to leverage and build from existing assets.
A Spectrum of Applications
Yet as noted in the opening, which of these approaches makes better sense depends on circumstance. One aspect of circumstance is available budget and deployment times for pilots or proofs-of-concept. Another aspect, of course, is the planned use or application for the deployment.
These are by no means hard distinctions, but in general we can see these contrasting approaches applying to the following uses:
| Applications and Uses for the Comprehensive, ‘Engineered’ Style
| Applications and Uses for the Open Style |
|
A critical distinction is the nature of the government. “External-facing” government entities or functions that want or need to incorporate much external information may be better suited to the open approach. Governmental organizations that have more complete control over their circumstances should perhaps focus on the conventional approach.
The key advantage of the adaptive, incremental "open" approach is that the whole IT game in government can change. An open world approach enables adoption as it proves itself and as budgets allow. Commitments made under this approach are robust in the face of uncertainty. With learning, targets can be re-adjusted, structure re-defined and applications re-focused, all as new discoveries and broadening scope dictate.
