...
Discussions around attribute management extend into discussing specific industry classifications and activity classifications. More work is needed, however, to understand industries and their associated activities if it is possible to describe across industry a core set of activity and processes that drive services, and develop a classification system for the processes underlying the activitiesthese. For interoperability, we need an agreed upon taxonomy, syntax, grammar and semantics for these process patterns just as much as we need the agreement for on the sets of attributes that are managed down in the bowels of these generic processes.
Example:
While Enterprise Architecture Frameworks like the US FEAF (and the Australian and NZ EAF's are based on the US FEAF) segment down to Services services and Functionsfunctions, there is no work going on to standardise the terms to describe generic business process patterns. For example, in the NZ government's Internal Affairs Department's public facing services , the process patterns supporting those services can be distilled down to: Grant, Register, Monitor, Advise, Enforce, Legislate, Collect.Each Can these descriptions be standardised and can the same be done for each of these functional process patterns contains sub-sets and super-sets of attributes. ?
In addition, there is a need to understand the needs of service providers that rely upon entity identity attributes in order to deliver services. An understanding of these needs will drive the definition of the mechanisms that will need to exist to provide assurances about an entity attribute or a set of entity attributes. It will also drive the definition of the criteria required to enable organizations to become an Authoritative Party for an entity attribute or set of entity attributes.
...