Registration
|
|
|
Title
|
IPSV (Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose
|
To categorise and sort aid discovery of Public Sector resources across organisational boundaries. |
|
|
|
|
|
Version
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status
|
Work In progress |
|
|
|
|
|
Where can the standard be found?
|
http://www.esd.org.uk/standards/ipsv/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a forum where views can be exchanged?
|
http://www.esd.org.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a Community of Practice that is developing the Standard?
|
Yes there is the forum itself where anyone can comment (you do not have to have a .gov.uk e mail address it is free and open to all – you just have to register on esd-toolkit
Also when comments have been collated and sifted by the editor, they are sent round to an established editorial panel recruited from across the public sector who have the final word on terms to be included in the next version (Members of the Editorial Panel available upon request) |
|
|
|
|
|
What are the Copyright and Licensing arrangements?
|
Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary (IPSV) © Crown copyright.
We wish to encourage the re-use of the IPSV.
It may be downloaded by individuals and organisations for incorporation in products and services that are made available to others without requiring a licence or payment of fees.
Anyone who includes the IPSV in a product or service should ensure that they do not alter the data or its presentation in any way that damages the integrity of the IPSV.
We shall not be liable for any losses due to errors or omissions in the IPSV. In addition esd-toolkit requires that the data is not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. The source of the material must be acknowledged as esd-toolkit and the title referring to Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary should appear on all documents and must be included when being reproduced as part of other publications or services. |
|
|
|
Business Requirements
|
|
|
Describe the standard in sufficient detail for a non-specialist to judge if it is fit for purpose
|
IPSV is a list of terms that are used to categorise public sector information.
Each IPSV term is under change control so that the version that each was created, amended, or deprecated is recorded.
There is a top level set of terms; each of which is then broken down into more specific terms.
At version 2, there are 16 top level terms.
Each term can have a number of alternate terms e.g. synonyms that are not used during categorisation but may be used for retrieval.
IPSV has also been 'mapped' to a number of other controlled lists.
IPSV is provided as an XML file conforming to the taxonomy.xsd schema, and is also available in a number of human readable forms e.g. pdf.
Two subsets of IPSV are now available:
- The Internal Vocabulary covers only the 'internal-facing' topics. It has 756 preferred terms and 1333 non-preferred.
- The Abridged version covers the whole scope of IPSV but is limited to the upper levels. It has 549 preferred terms and 1472 non-preferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why was the Standard originally developed?
|
Originally there were three lists·
- GCL, The Government Category List·
- LGCL, The Local Government Category List·
- seamless UK
IPSV combines the lists and hence reduces confusion and is cheaper to maintain.
IPSV can be a part of the solution to the following problems.
| Problem 1 |
| A Customer seeking to find services or resources that meet their needs and circumstances may not find all of the potential solutions from across the Public Sector.
Each agency will have an ‘entry’ page to each of its services. |
|
| A 'Web Search Engine' is likely to respond with 1000's of pages, for a service type query.
A Text Search at a single site is unlikely to bring forward the main 'entry' page for a selected service.
A Portal, representing many public sector agencies will struggle to deliver consistent results without a common language.
The language used to describe services and resources can vary across agencies and local context. This does not help discovery. |
|
| | Problem 2 |
| | Agencies cannot quickly target services and resources to 'alternative views' e.g. Customer Segmentation |
|
| IPSV can map to a range of other lists that can automatically enable services to be grouped by Customer Type, etc. |
|
| | Problem 3 |
| | An officer may struggle to find Resources across organisational boundaries |
|
| Getting advice on topics
Peer support on topics via the esd-toolkit.
Clear categorisation of resources to ensure relevant results. |
|
| | Problem 4 |
| | Responding to FOI requests. |
|
| Evidence relating to a decision may be scattered across an organisation's information infrastructure.
IPSV can join it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there new reasons to continue to develop and maintain the standard?
|
As from eGovernment Metadata Standard (eGMS) version 3.1 (http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/metadata_document.asp?docnum=1017), the Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary (IPSV) is now the mandated encoding scheme for the Subject element. |
|
|
|
|
|
Which Business Sectors can the standard apply to?
|
- Object Model for the Public Sector
- Data Cleansing
|
|
|
|
Development
|
|
|
How mature is the standard?
|
Well established and now in a regular update regime.
The minor version increases typically every 6 months.
Some legislation changes require that amendments are made quickly, which can result in a revised version being published outside of the normal series.
Version 1 was developed by merging three earlier lists: - the GCL (Government Category List)
- LGCL (Local Government Category List)
- seamlessUK taxonomy.
It had 2732 preferred terms and 4230 non-preferred.
Version 2 is much bigger, with 3080 preferred terms and 4843 non-preferred.
As a result, IPSV now covers internal-facing as well as public-oriented topics.
You can still refer back to the superseded version if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
What rigour has been applied to the standard to ensure that it is fit for purpose?
|
IPSV is maintained as part of the "family of Lists" hosted by esd—toolkit.
As such it comes under the strict version control, consultation process and governance that applies to all the controlled lists.
It was created by an experienced taxonomist.
The Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary (IPSV) is an "encoding scheme" for populating the e-GMS Subject element of metadata.
It is fully compliant with ISO 2788 and BS 8723, the International and British Standards for monolingual thesauri.
The vocabulary was developed with the backing of the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government) and the former e-Government Unit (now Cabinet Office's Delivery and Transformation Group)
Version 1.00 was released in April 2005; Version 2.00 supersedes it, as of 3 April 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
What future developments can be predicted?
|
CLG have agreed funding for esd-toolkit to host IPSV until March 31st 2008.
Negotiations are now taking place to secure the funding to continue to support changes to the Terms.
Whilst the content of IPSV is mature and unlikely to be radically revised, IPSV may be the basis for emerging applications such as semantic web and RDF techniques which will facilitate sophisticated searches across UK public sector webs sites. This would require a new funded development to define IPSV in SKOS or something similar. |
|
|
|
Standards
|
|
|
What standards (if any) does this standard conform to?
|
Content conforms to ISO 2788 and BS 8723, the International and British Standards for monolingual thesauri.
The structure conforms to the esd-toolkit's Taxonomy.xsd |
|
|
|
|
|
How does this standard 'map' to the LeGSB Local Government Standards Architecture Reference Model?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other completed or proposed potential Standards that overlap the scope of this standard?
|
The Government Category List (GCL) was previously mandated in e-GMS.
The Local Government Category List (LGCL) was used in local government.
These encoding schemes are no longer maintained; IPSV should be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Standards that can be used with this Standard
|
eGMS
is a starting point from which organisations can begin to specify the content of their own metadata profiles to describe their information resources.
eGMS lays down the standards and structure for tagging information to ensure a consistent approach across the public sector.
|
LeGSB Issue
|
|
Provide examples of Metadata Profiles derived from eGMS to be applied to information resources at a Local Authority |
eGMS
. IPSV should be a scheme within the subject element.
Dublin Core
Mappings to
Onward mappings to
HTML HEAD element.
The Semantic Web via |
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
What can you do now, that you could not do before, or, what now no longer needs to be done?
|
Better search results in that
- Only relevant resources are found, and therefor a shorter results list
- Results can be found from many organisations irrespective of local variations of vocabulary. e.g. Blue Badge, Disabled Parking Permit, Orange Badge.
- Improved choice and options offered to a customer seeking a solution to their needs and circumstances from across the Public Sector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the LeGSB Vision Statement should this standard contribute to?
|
- More Accessible Organisations
- Being Compliant
- Customer Centric
|
|
|
|
Take-up
|
|
|
What degree of take-up has been achieved with Local Authorities?
|
For purely Web Site usage ...
213 Public Sector Web Sites, containing 980,000 pages reference IPSV in their Metadata
144 Public Sector orgganisations are register with the esd-toolkit forum + 5 private sector organisations.
See
http://www.esd.org.uk/standards/ipsv/viewer/siteslist.aspx
http://www.esd.org.uk/standards/ipsv/viewer/UserUsageList.aspx
|
|
|
|
Implementation
|
|
|
Implementation advice and lessons learnt from early-adopters
|
Produce an Application Profile for each of the 'Customer Journeys' of that the organsiation wishes to support, illustrating where IPSV is to be used, along with other vocabularies, and the mappings that enable information resources to be joined up as a result.
Tag each seperate peice of information with the appropriate IPSV term(s) and facilitate queries by translation from/to IPSV terms.
The IPSV term to use can be determined from
- a mapping to IPSV from other classificatations.
- auto-tagging tools.
|
|
|
|
Registration
|
|
|
Title
|
Local governement type list
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose
|
Standard about loical gov type list |
|
|
|
|
|
Version
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status
|
In use |
|
|
|
|
|
Where can the standard be found?
|
http://www.esd.org.uk/standards/lgtl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a forum where views can be exchanged?
|
esd-forum.org.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a Community of Practice that is developing the Standard?
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
What are the Copyright and Licensing arrangements?
|
crwon copyright |
|
|
|
Business Requirements
|
|
|
Describe the standard in sufficient detail for a non-specialist to judge if it is fit for purpose
|
some stuff in there |
|
|
|
|
|
Why was the Standard originally developed?
|
asdfa |
|
|
|
|
|
Are there new reasons to continue to develop and maintain the standard?
|
asdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Which Business Sectors can the standard apply to?
|
- Object Model for the Public Sector
|
|
|
|
Development
|
|
|
How mature is the standard?
|
asdf |
|
|
|
|
|
What rigour has been applied to the standard to ensure that it is fit for purpose?
|
asdfasdf |
|
|
|
|
|
What future developments can be predicted?
|
that is english for colour |
|
|
|
Standards
|
|
|
Other completed or proposed potential Standards that overlap the scope of this standard?
|
none |
|
|
|
|
|
Other Standards that can be used with this Standard
|
egms |
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
What can you do now, that you could not do before, or, what now no longer needs to be done?
|
Get a targetted result set |
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the LeGSB Vision Statement should this standard contribute to?
|
- More Accessible Organisations
- Better Services
|
|
|
|
Take-up
|
|
|
What degree of take-up has been achieved with Local Authorities?
|
Most councils are implementing this styandard |
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
How are suppliers of relevant products being engaged with the standard?
|
lk'ajsdf |
|
|
|
LeGSB is a DCLG funded initiative to raise awareness of, and promote the use of technical standards across local and central government, for which Tameside MBC is the lead authority. The LeGSB brand is owned by and © TMBC.
Communication by e-mail from and to LeGSB is subject to the standard Tameside MBC Email Disclaimer, which can be found at http://www.tameside.gov.uk/emdis.htm
All information provided by LeGSB is intended as a guide and should not be considered as a definitive instruction to adopt any standard, product, policy, methodology etc.
Whilst every care has been taken in the compilation of any LeGSB publication (e.g. the website), and every attempt made to present up-to-date and accurate information, we cannot guarantee that inaccuracies will not occur. Tameside MBC will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any inaccuracy or error within those materials.
Unless explicitly stated, Tameside MBC does not endorse or support other organisations that may be referenced in LeGSB Publications. Occasionally, links from the LeGSB website will lead to pages maintained by other organisations. These links are provided purely for your convenience, and no responsibility is assumed by Tameside MBC for the contents of its pages.