DE4A Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) - Revision history

Anarosa.guzman: reference to EB in OOTS Hub

2023-01-20T07:23:58Z

reference to EB in OOTS Hub

Anarosa.guzman: Adapted to 2nd iteration

2022-03-23T11:47:16Z

Adapted to 2nd iteration

Anarosa.guzman: Anarosa.guzman moved page Issuing Authority Locator to DE4A Issuing Authority Locator (IAL)

2021-06-23T06:41:33Z

Anarosa.guzman moved page Issuing Authority Locator to DE4A Issuing Authority Locator (IAL)

Ictu mavi.cristache: Fix redirect

2021-05-31T19:03:07Z

Fix redirect

Anarosa.guzman: included explanation of "provision metadata"

2021-05-31T11:12:10Z

included explanation of "provision metadata"

Anarosa.guzman: Include "type" to refer to categories of evidence and not to a particular instance. Editorial improvement of the flows. Clarifications on the adoption of the criteria-based approach.

2021-05-31T09:58:39Z

Include "type" to refer to categories of evidence and not to a particular instance. Editorial improvement of the flows. Clarifications on the adoption of the criteria-based approach.

Thasmee.karunaratne at 08:18, 31 May 2021

2021-05-31T08:18:30Z

Thasmee.karunaratne at 08:14, 31 May 2021

2021-05-31T08:14:24Z

Thasmee.karunaratne at 09:41, 28 May 2021

2021-05-28T09:41:22Z

Thasmee.karunaratne at 09:40, 28 May 2021

2021-05-28T09:40:12Z

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 '''<u>Criteria-based vs evidence-based approach</u>'''
-The approaches to facilitate the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; criteria-based or evidence-based, or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidence type. ''Procedure criteria'' can be seen as procedural requirements either as conditions to satisfy directly by “yes/no” such as “is an adult”, or as information to be obtained, so some evidence type is required to prove such criteria. In the context of administrative procedures, criteria to asses may vary over the time, while evidence types rarely change. The '''evidence-based approach''' puts away procedural criteria concerns from the components of the technical system since it is only focused on a common list of evidence types and their canonical forms. Canonical evidence types provide a common classification of evidence relevant for procedures, so data evaluators and data owners can map their domestic evidence types to canonical evidence types. Moreover, canonical evidence is sent along with the lawfully issued domestic evidence to allow a common understanding and processing of the information provided regardless the format and language of domestic evidences.
+The approaches to facilitate the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; ''criteria-based'' or ''evidence-based'', or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidence type.
 Both approaches need agreements on the canonical forms of the evidence types from a country-agnostic perspective to guarantee a common understanding of evidences and to ease their processing. Besides, canonical evidence types are required to comply with the GDPR requirements on analysing datasets that are subject of some data processing, such as the data transfer to cross-border public authorities because they are relevant for their procedures.
-In the context of DE4A, the Evidence Broker (ref) could be used to extend the IAL with canonical procedural criteria by mapping canonical procedure procedures to canonical evidence types.
+In the context of DE4A, the [https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/display/OOTS/Common+and+Supporting+services Evidence Broker] could be used to extend the IAL with canonical procedural criteria that can be proved by canonical evidence types.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) component helps the Data Consumer (DC) to find out the issuing authority that can provide the required evidence within a particular country.
+Issuing Authority Locator (IAL) component helps Data Consumers (DC) to find out the issuing authority within a particular country either to obtain a canonical evidence type or to subscribe a canonical event catalogue, and know the characteristics of the evidence provision or the subscription provision, respectively.
 In order to identify the corresponding issuing authority by the DC, this component requires the following preconditions:
-# The user has said to the DC that the evidence must be provided by other country.
+# The user has said to the DC that the evidence or the event must be provided by other country.
-# DC knows which canonical criterion or [[Canonical Evidence|canonical evidence]] type corresponds to the evidence to get through the technical system
+# DC knows which [[Canonical Evidence|canonical evidence]] type or canonical event catalogue that corresponds to the evidence or event specified by the user. Domestic evidence and events are nationally matched with canonical evidence type and canonical event catalogues.
-# Every issuing authority registered per canonical evidence type has a service to provide such an evidence
+# Every issuing authority registered in the IAL its evidence and subscription provisions, i.e., that there is a service to provide a canonical evidence type or a canonical event catalogue
-# Each canonical evidence type is only provided by one competent authority within a certain territorial or administrative scope; if authorities from different administrative level can provide the same canonical evidence type, the authority within the higher level should be registered. For instance, if evidence of a person has some university degree is in the registries of the corresponding university and the Ministry, only this last one is the competence authority to be registered as such evidence type provider in the country
+# Each canonical evidence type and event catalogue is only provided by one competent authority within an administrative territorial scope; if authorities at different administrative territorial level can provide the same canonical evidence type or event catalogue, the authority within the higher level should be registered. For instance, if evidence of a person has some university degree is in both registries of the corresponding university (at a educational level) and Ministry (at national level), only this last one is the competence authority to be registered in the IAL to participate in the cross-border exchange.
 There are several possible options with their respective flows:
-# '''[[Canonical Evidence]] (Flow A, Main Flow):''' when DC sends a request to Data Provider (DP), first DC will enquire from [[Information Desk|IDK]] about the issuing authority for a specific canonical evidence type based on the respective country. IDK will provide two possible outcomes.
+# '''Provisions (Flow A, Main Flow):''' DC enquires at the [[Information Desk|IDK]] about the issuing authorities for one or a list of canonical evidence types and/or canonical event catalogues (at least one). IDK will provide two possible outcomes.
-#* Success: the national issuing authority that provides the canonical evidence type in such country, along with the provision metadata.
+#* Success: list of provisions that complies with the enquire, grouped by canonical evidence type of event catalogue, country code and administrative territorial level.
-#* Error Not Found: there is no issuing authority for such canonical evidence type in such country.
+#* Error Not Found: there is no issuing authority to provide the specified list.
-# '''[[Canonical Evidence]] in a competence distribution Scenario (Flow B, subcase of Flow A):''' This flow is similar to Flow A with the difference of there are multiple sub-national issuing authorities for a canonical evidence type. Following are the possible  results from the IDK for DC:
+# '''Provisions at an administrative territorial unit  (Flow B, subcase of Flow A):''' DC enquires at the [[Information Desk|IDK]] about the issuing authority at a administrative territorial unit for one or a list of canonical evidence types and/or canonical event catalogues. IDK will provide the same possible outcomes than Flow A.
-The '''''provision metadata''''' is a set of attributes that defines each possible evidence provision registered in the IAL that has an associated ESL entry. These attributes are: identifier of canonical evidence type, identifier of the DP, administrative territorial level and unit of the DP, and type of provision (IP or USI). The provision metadata is enough to locate in the ESL the corresponding data service and its connection details.
+The '''''provision metadata''''' is a set of attributes registered in the IAL: identifier of canonical evidence type or canonical event catalogue, identifier of the issuing authority, preferred label of the issuing authority, administrative territorial level and unit of the issuing authority, and Latin name of the territorial unit. The provision metadata is enough to to interact with the user to select one provision from a list and to locate the connection details of the corresponding data service in the ESL.
-The approaches to ease the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; criteria-based or evidence-based, or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidences type. Procedure criteria can be seen as procedural requirements either as conditions to satisfy directly by “yes/no” evidence types such as “is an adult”, or as information to be obtained. For the criteria-based approach, IAL can be extended to included canonical procedural criteria and the mapping to canonical evidence types within each country. The evidence-based approach puts away procedural criteria concerns from the components of the technical system; it is only focused on a list of evidence types and their canonical forms that are instantiated in the lawfully issued evidences. Both approaches need agreements on the canonical forms of the evidence types from a country-agnostic perspective. In the context of DE4A, we proposed to define the canonical forms from domain-specific ontologies based on each pilot requirements in alignment with existing standard vocabularies and data models. Issuing authorities are responsible for providing domestic evidence in the corresponding canonical form.
+'''<u>Criteria-based vs evidence-based approach</u>'''
-IAL covers both the evidence and criteria-based approaches for the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences, as described in the deliverable D2.4 (ref) of the Project Start Architecture [ref]. In the context of DE4A, we will reuse the core component of TOOP (ref), the Evidence Broker (ref), to extend the IAL with canonical procedural criteria according to the requirements of DE4A pilot use cases.
+The approaches to facilitate the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; criteria-based or evidence-based, or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidence type. ''Procedure criteria'' can be seen as procedural requirements either as conditions to satisfy directly by “yes/no” such as “is an adult”, or as information to be obtained, so some evidence type is required to prove such criteria. In the context of administrative procedures, criteria to asses may vary over the time, while evidence types rarely change. The '''evidence-based approach''' puts away procedural criteria concerns from the components of the technical system since it is only focused on a common list of evidence types and their canonical forms. Canonical evidence types provide a common classification of evidence relevant for procedures, so data evaluators and data owners can map their domestic evidence types to canonical evidence types. Moreover, canonical evidence is sent along with the lawfully issued domestic evidence to allow a common understanding and processing of the information provided regardless the format and language of domestic evidences.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 #* Success: the national issuing authority that provides the canonical evidence type in such country, along with the provision metadata.
 #* Error Not Found: there is no issuing authority for such canonical evidence type in such country.
-# '''[[Canonical evidence]] in a competence distribution Scenario (Flow B, subcase of Flow A):''' This flow is similar to Flow A with the difference of there are multiple sub-national issuing authorities for a canonical evidence type. Following are the possible  results from the IDK for DC:
+# '''[[Canonical Evidence]] in a competence distribution Scenario (Flow B, subcase of Flow A):''' This flow is similar to Flow A with the difference of there are multiple sub-national issuing authorities for a canonical evidence type. Following are the possible  results from the IDK for DC:
 #* Success: list of subnational authorities that can issue the canonical evidence type within the country, each one with the corresponding provision metadata. All the listed subnational authorities corresponds to a same administrative level, i.e., list of universities, regions from a NUTS level or municipality from LAU.Then the user is prompted to select the item of the returned list.
 #* Error Not Found: There is no subnational authorities that can issue the canonical evidence within the country

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 #* Success: list of canonical evidence types that can be used to verify the given canonical criterion within such country, along with their particularities if any. Then either the DC by a rule or the user selects the desired evidence type and finally DC can adopt option Flow A or Flow B.
 #* Error: there is no canonical evidence types associated to the given canonical criterion within the country
-#* Error Cancel: No canonical evidence type has been selected from the given list.<br />
+#* Error Cancel: No canonical evidence type has been selected from the given list.
 The approaches to ease the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; criteria-based or evidence-based, or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidences type. Procedure criteria can be seen as procedural requirements either as conditions to satisfy directly by “yes/no” evidence types such as “is an adult”, or as information to be obtained. For the criteria-based approach, IAL can be extended to included canonical procedural criteria and the mapping to canonical evidence types within each country. The evidence-based approach puts away procedural criteria concerns from the components of the technical system; it is only focused on a list of evidence types and their canonical forms that are instantiated in the lawfully issued evidences. Both approaches need agreements on the canonical forms of the evidence types from a country-agnostic perspective. In the context of DE4A, we proposed to define the canonical forms from domain-specific ontologies based on each pilot requirements in alignment with existing standard vocabularies and data models. Issuing authorities are responsible for providing domestic evidence in the corresponding canonical form.
 IAL covers both the evidence and criteria-based approaches for the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences, as described in the deliverable D2.4 (ref) of the Project Start Architecture [ref]. In the context of DE4A, we will reuse the core component of TOOP (ref), the Evidence Broker (ref), to extend the IAL with canonical procedural criteria according to the requirements of DE4A pilot use cases.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 # The user has said to the DC that the evidence must be provided by other country.
-# DC knows which canonical criterion or [[Canonical Evidence|canonical evidence]] corresponds to the evidence to get through the technical system
+# DC knows which canonical criterion or [[Canonical Evidence|canonical evidence]] type corresponds to the evidence to get through the technical system
-# Every issuing authority registered per canonical evidence has a service to provide such an evidence
+# Every issuing authority registered per canonical evidence type has a service to provide such an evidence
-# Each canonical evidence is only provided by one competent authority within a certain territorial or administrative scope (e.g, in Spain, evidence of a person has some university degree is in the registries of the corresponding university and the Ministry, but only this last one is the competence authority to prove such a fact)
+# Each canonical evidence type is only provided by one competent authority within a certain territorial or administrative scope; if authorities from different administrative level can provide the same canonical evidence type, the authority within the higher level should be registered. For instance, if evidence of a person has some university degree is in the registries of the corresponding university and the Ministry, only this last one is the competence authority to be registered as such evidence type provider in the country
-There are three possible options and their respective flows:
+There are several possible options with their respective flows:
-# '''[[Canonical Evidence]] (Main flow):''' when DC sends a request to Data Provider (DP), first DC will enquire from [[Information Desk|IDK]] about the issuing authority for a specific canonical evidence based on the respective country. IDK will provide two possible outcomes. The first is that [[Information Desk|IDK]] gives the national issuing authority for the canonical evidence. The second possible result is that IDK returns an error message because there is no issuing authority for such canonical evidence in such country.
+# '''[[Canonical Evidence]] (Flow A, Main Flow):''' when DC sends a request to Data Provider (DP), first DC will enquire from [[Information Desk|IDK]] about the issuing authority for a specific canonical evidence type based on the respective country. IDK will provide two possible outcomes.
-# '''Canonical Procedural Criterion (Alternate Flow to Flow A):''' In this option, DC send out a request to DP, DC will ask from IDK about the issuing authority for a given canonical criterion. Following are the possible  results from the IDK for DC:
+The approaches to ease the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences are; criteria-based or evidence-based, or both, which can together fulfil the needs of both consuming competent authorities that work with procedural criteria and with evidences type. Procedure criteria can be seen as procedural requirements either as conditions to satisfy directly by “yes/no” evidence types such as “is an adult”, or as information to be obtained. For the criteria-based approach, IAL can be extended to included canonical procedural criteria and the mapping to canonical evidence types within each country. The evidence-based approach puts away procedural criteria concerns from the components of the technical system; it is only focused on a list of evidence types and their canonical forms that are instantiated in the lawfully issued evidences. Both approaches need agreements on the canonical forms of the evidence types from a country-agnostic perspective. In the context of DE4A, we proposed to define the canonical forms from domain-specific ontologies based on each pilot requirements in alignment with existing standard vocabularies and data models. Issuing authorities are responsible for providing domestic evidence in the corresponding canonical form.
-R1 (Success): list of canonical evidences that can be used to verify the given canonical criterion within such country, along with their particularities if any and the user selects the desired canonical and finally DC can adopt option Flow A (Main Flow) or Flow C (in case of multiple issuing authorities).
+IAL covers both the evidence and criteria-based approaches for the mapping between domestic and cross-border evidences, as described in the deliverable D2.4 (ref) of the Project Start Architecture [ref]. In the context of DE4A, we will reuse the core component of TOOP (ref), the Evidence Broker (ref), to extend the IAL with canonical procedural criteria according to the requirements of DE4A pilot use cases.

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:41, 23 June 2021
(No difference)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 There are three possible options and their respective flows:
-# '''[[Canonical evidence|Canonical Evidence]] (Main flow):''' when DC sends a request to DP, first DC will enquire from IDK about the issuing authority for a specific canonical evidence based on the respective country. IDK will provide two possible outcomes. The first is that IDK gives the national issuing authority for the canonical evidence. The second possible result is that IDK returns an error message because there is no issuing authority for such canonical evidence in such country.
+# '''Canonical Evidence (Main flow):''' when DC sends a request to DP, first DC will enquire from IDK about the issuing authority for a specific canonical evidence based on the respective country. IDK will provide two possible outcomes. The first is that IDK gives the national issuing authority for the canonical evidence. The second possible result is that IDK returns an error message because there is no issuing authority for such canonical evidence in such country.
 # '''Canonical Procedural Criterion (Alternate Flow to Flow A):''' In this option, DC send out a request to DP, DC will ask from IDK about the issuing authority for a given canonical criterion. Following are the possible  results from the IDK for DC: