Open everis-rpam opened 5 years ago
rollikai
commented
5 years ago We think that we should aim for harmonizing and getting common understanding of similar mandateds in different services. In Finland, the harmonization of mandates between different service providers has been a key design principle. The same should be aimed at the European level, as well. This is the most end user approach, in our opinion.
everis-rpam
commented
5 years ago We do agree, and is one of our fundamental objective. This is why we are currently mapping the different Models in FI, BE, NL, AT, ES and PT into one "harmonised" EU vocabulary.
The main obstacle we're bumping on is that, except for AT and ES we are not finding a national-wide model for all public services (BE and NL have models per large administrative sectors, e.g. only for Taxes or only for Health).
In the case of FI we have been studying the powers taxonomy but could not find any Mandate data Model nor any transaction documents (eMandate Request and eMandate Response structured electronic documents).
If, in the scope of your functions, any of you can facilitate us with such models...well, they will be more than welcome.
Tks.
Questions by Michal Ohrablo: "2- Is it possible to come up with a set of “harmonized” public services?” What would these be? SDGR-based? 3- Would it be possible for a MS to rely on a simple eAuthorisation “OK/KO” returned from the cross-border eMandate Registry, at least for the “harmonised” public services?
This is by my opinion very crucial question for further development of the interoperable PaM concept. Perhaps we agree that in this case by “harmonisation” we mean that services in question share reasonable generic model of processes and entities. Such harmonization is prerequisite for possibility to work with structured, machine-readable description of the Power – “level” chosen from fixed list of options, meaningfulness of financial/geospatial limitations… Two examples: a. Public Procurement – directives regulating this area pave the way for joint procurement carried out by one Contracting Authority in the name of others, including cross-border. For example, one CA can establish a tendering framework for certain types of products, called Dynamic Purchasing System and this CA can allow other CAs to use it. The CA which originally established the DPS would be in this case the Mandatee, the joining CA would be the Mandator. Power can be described by just couple of data – identification of the DPS, exact items from the DPS catalogue to be purchased… b. I (living in Country A) am a founder and legal representative of an NGO established in Country B. I want to empower my lawyer in Country B to move the NGO from one address to another. However, this is the area where the level of harmonisation is very low. There is a good chance that in my Country A there is no exact equivalent of the type of the NGO I established in the Country B. Therefore, the RPaM in Country A won’t probably have any reference to that type of legal entity and subsequently to any operations the mandate could do with it (like changing address).
I assume you think along similar lines when you ask about harmonisation in connection with PaM. And when we want to identify the services which are sufficiently harmonised, the “fifth level of interoperability” which is sometimes mentioned on top of the EIF – the political – is the key. Therefore the Public Procurement is a safe bet, while in the area of Taxes of Social Insurance there is probably long way to go. By my opinion, the Annex II of the SDGR doesn’t reflect this aspect at all, therefore it is not a way to go. "