Please read this page if you have problems to login. After you register as a new member, your account will have to be validated before you can login. You'll receive a notification. Please be patient!
This deliverable contains basic descriptions of the implementation of Citizenpedia component, including the software architecture and APIs.
This report gives the development status of the Citizenpedia in the first year of the Simpatico project at the top of “Citizenpedia framework specification and architecture” already presented in some of previous deliverables. The Citizenpedia architecture defined in Figure 1 gives only one direction of interactions: from users to Citizenpedia platform. I belive that this interaction is bi-directional. The document is well organized and the architecture are clear.
The deliverable presents only a basic description of the tools useful for the implementation of the Citizenpedia component. The focus of the specific tools and methods will probably identified in the D4.3. This document describes the QEA and CPD elements and characteristics. In general, in my opinion, although the creation of a dialogue between Public Administration and citizens is an important issue that this project points out, the QEA and CPD parts can be considered as only basic features of the real possibilities. They can limit this relation instead of enriching it, since they require a structure process of interaction that not only can be adapted with difficulty to different situations and context, but that require a big effort from users.
The document is well organized and the architecture and components to be designed are clear, but I think they lack more details. I'd also like to express my doubts about the "collaborative procedure designer" as administrative procedures are on one hand usually well defined by legislation and on the other hand citizens or companies don't know how the administration is organized so the don't really have a clue on how the procedure can become more efficient.
This tool might be usefull only for the public part of the procedures but in which citizens and companies participate, but, I think that to approach the objective of the project which is to make interactions more efficient, this public parts of the procedures might be the same for every procedure or at least for every type of procedure (it should be designed just once and of course this can be a collaborative design) so it will make no sense to ask citizens or companies to participate in the design of specific procedures.
The goal of the deliverable is to present a basic infrastructure for the project that can be used to integrate the various techniques (developed in the context of the project) for improving the user experience in the domain of public administration services. The infrastructure and tools are very well described. What is less clear how to realize the evolution of the system in case of updates/changes (planned or unexpected). Public administration services are not only complex but tend to change (every few years, due to changes in legislation or other reasons). I find that the deliverable presents a rather static infrastructure.
Well planned and described WP. Comprehensive while focused.
