Standardising Public Policy Documentation to Foster Collaboration Across Government Agencies

Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 506)


Public policies documents convey strategic directions and framework of actions of government in a particular sector. For most societal challenges, there is a need for government entities at the same and different levels to coordinate their policies and collaborate on the implementations of policies. However, this coordination and collaboration efforts are seriously hampered by the lack of a central repository for public policy documents from which policy makers and researchers can access related policies on a particular topic, industry or group of stakeholders. To address this challenge, this paper describes the development of Vocabulary to underpin the implementation of a shared public policy repository in Europe. The Core Public Policy Vocabulary (CPPV) is developed as a semantic interoperability resource for government organizations for consistent description and documentation of public policies to enable efficient discovery, cross-referencing and analysis of policy documents. We describe our approach, conceptual model, elements of the vocabulary, its implementation and concrete scenarios for the use of the vocabulary.


Core Public Policy Vocabulary (CPPV) Inter-agency collaboration Standardisation Open policy Policy repository e-Government 


  1. 1.
    Ojo, A., Mellouli, S.: Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Gov. Inf. Q. (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OECD: Policy coherence for development (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISA: Core Vocabularies Specification (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CDM – Executive Board: Definitions of policy and programme of activities (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siobhan, L.: Community Development (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cochran, C.L., Malone, E.F.: Public Policy: Perspectives and Choices (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Valente, Andre: Types and roles of legal ontologies. In: Benjamins, V.Richard, Casanovas, Pompeu, Breuker, Joost, Gangemi, Aldo (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS, vol. 3369, pp. 65–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wimmer, M.A., Furdik, K., Bicking, M., Mach, M., Sabol, T., Butka, P.: Open Collaboration in Policy Development: Concept and Architecture to integrate scenario development and formal policy modelling. In: Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (eds.) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance, pp. 199–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulovits, H., Kraxner, M., Plangg, M., Becker, C., Bechhofer, S.: Open Preservation Data: Controlled vocabularies and ontologies for preservation ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (IPRES 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strategy Markup Language Committee: stratml.
  13. 13.
    Olivé, A., Cabot, J.: A research agenda for conceptual schema-centric development. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 319–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rolland, C.: Capturing system intentionality with maps. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling a research agenda. Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wand, Y., Monarchi, D.E., Parsons, J., Woo, C.C.: Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development. Decis. Support Syst. 15, 285–304 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Yu, E.: From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun. ACM 42, 31–37 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rolland, C.: Information Systems and Web Information Systems: A Methodological Perspective. In: Information Technology and Communication at the Dawn of the New Millennium, p. 1 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., MacDonald, I.G.: Information Systems Methodologies; A Framework for Understanding. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: From conceptual modelling to requirements engineering. Ann. Softw. Eng. 10, 151–176 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bubenko Jr., J.A.: From information algebra to enterprise modelling and ontologies – A historical perspective on modelling for information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frisse, M.E., Johnson, K.B., Nian, H., Davison, C.L., Gadd, C.S., Unertl, K.M., Turri, P.A., Chen, Q.: The financial impact of health information exchange on emergency department care. J. Am. Med. Informatics Assoc. 19, 328–333 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Insight Centre for Data AnalyticsNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations