Re: AIKR egovernance task Knowledge Stewards .. was U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan

Agreed - the list of 'member approved' links-to-resources would be labelled
'CURATED'
The resources identified would also be  the source for definitions of  Data
Elements and / or XML Elements that are in a separate 'ELEMENT INVENTORY'
( initial thought is  structured as XML-Data schema
https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/ ) - which in turn could be
referenced in TOPIC MAP , OWL / RDF , THESAURUS constructs.



It was a pleasure to clarify


On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 9:54 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Carl
> thanks for suggesting this mechanism-
> we could implement it by creating çurated resource list'' part of the
> wiki  which can be entered with a submission form and have periodic votes,
> for example once a month ask members to vote on the suggested new resources
> list (in or out)
>
> The problem would be that our member based has not been ver engaged
> with the CG processes so far, how many resources do you expect would the
> group be able to generate say in a year, and how many votes do you envisage
> are necessary for a pass? Is this something you would be able /interested
> to curate as part of you co chair role?
> If you are available to implement this idea, and unless someone has
> objects or suggestions for refinement of this process, I d say go ahead
> Thank you
> PDM
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 11:32 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, as a W3C group with members located across
>> the world, AIKR CG is able to peruse ideas and notions that originate from
>> any country.
>> Given our focus on eGovernance, I encourage US (our members) to send
>> links to Knowledge content that could be Reference documents (normative or
>> otherwise), AND then  (as an egovernance task)  Knowledge Stewards   WE
>> (the membership) critique the content and vote on its disposition i.e. does
>> it /does it not  get added to the AIKR wiki.
>>
>> thanks in advance
>>
>> Carl Mattocks
>>
>> It was a pleasure to clarify
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:31 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Owen
>>>
>>> please feel free to pursue whatever action you see fit to explore the
>>> route that you are considering, and consult with whosoever.  (not
>>> forgetting to aligh with our CG goals)
>>>
>>> Let us know if you need input from us, or whatever outcome you come up
>>> with that may need discussion/decision/ We can always put whatever outcome
>>> down in our activities done list''
>>>
>>> Thank you!!
>>> PDM
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paola, machine-readability
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document> is not a
>>>> U.S.-based standard.  It is a concept, i.e., a good practice.  Nor are ISO
>>>> 15489 or ISO 17469-1 U.S. standards.  They are international standards.  So
>>>> the only issue is why they are not being appropriately applied --
>>>> particularly by organizations like IAC.  To the degree there may be
>>>> obstacles to doing so, we should explore means of reducing, if not
>>>> eliminating them.  In the event that lack of awareness may be one of them,
>>>> it will be interesting to see if IAC is open to learning about them.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, the U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan includes a
>>>> couple dozen references to metadata, including this one
>>>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dc80e-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>
>>>> regarding geospatial data:
>>>>
>>>> The Federal Government’s lead agencies for NGDA data assets will
>>>> identify, inventory, and publish the status and standards being used for
>>>> each of the NGDA data themes and content and services metadata, consistent
>>>> with *international standards* ...
>>>>
>>>> This year's planned actions related to AI
>>>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dbd82-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>
>>>> include:
>>>>
>>>> * Investigating barriers to access or quality limitations of Federal
>>>> data and models that impede AI R&D and testing. A Request for Information
>>>> (RFI) was issued as a Federal Register Notice by OMB inviting the public to
>>>> identify needs for additional access to, or improvements in the quality of,
>>>> Federal data and models that would improve the nation’s AI R&D and testing
>>>> efforts.
>>>>
>>>> * Addressing identified barriers by updating Federal data and source
>>>> code inventory guidance for agencies to utilize in enhancing the discovery
>>>> and usability of Federal data and models in AI R&D.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should explore prospects for getting someone to brief our
>>>> group on those plans.  Of course, it would also be nice if the results were
>>>> reported in an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML so that
>>>> learning about them were not limited by the constraints of time and space.
>>>> See the performance indicators at
>>>> http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_66413a26-2dde-11ea-89b4-de7271babdf6
>>>> The RFI is targeted for completion next month.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>> On 1/4/2020 9:59 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Owen
>>>>
>>>> I do like standards as well, they are neat and give a sense of order
>>>> and certainty
>>>>
>>>>  at the same time, being a citizen of the world, I seek a global
>>>> perspective. :-)  The question is often: is a US standard good also for the
>>>> rest of the world?  Does it fit universal requirements?
>>>>
>>>> OK to start from where we are, and from what have got (say the ISO you
>>>> mention) But we should keep in mind that what we have is a starting point
>>>> that needs to be validated, or evolved, to fit a broader spec.
>>>>
>>>> I think here the point for us is avoiding to make country based
>>>> assumptions, and avoiding wanting to impose a single view of the world,
>>>> however pretty :-)
>>>>
>>>> I am shocked at what I see, despite the www making us one world, we
>>>> are still culturally segregated and gliding over too many important
>>>> issues
>>>>
>>>>  For example, just emailed Norvig ccd Vinay Chaudry because he is a
>>>> member of this list, as well as a board member for AAAI JOURNAL where this
>>>> great paper is published:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI16/paper/download/12444/12195
>>>>
>>>> asking whether this was a US centric paper, but he says he cannot
>>>> remember
>>>>
>>>> there is no dataset to verify these findings , and not even a mention
>>>> of whether the findings are based on a survey sample population  which I
>>>> assume is english speaking and probably US based.  In the rest of the
>>>> world, from Latam to Middle and far east, afaik, these findings may not
>>>> true, its hard to tell given the lack of mention
>>>>
>>>>  There is an assumption (in the USA) that the US is the center of the
>>>> universe of discourse, and probably true also in other regions.
>>>>
>>>>   As much as we all can identify to some extent with US standards, and
>>>> we like them, we need to make sure the scope and limitation are clearly
>>>> stated and hopefully address that
>>>>
>>>>  a plurality of cultural and geographic perspectives, or the intention
>>>> to pursue such plurality, should be manifest in this CG work, whatever way
>>>> you want to reflect that
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> PDM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:25 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paola, yes, indeed, our focus should be on global goals.  However,
>>>>> standards and good practices need not be reinvented by international
>>>>> bureaucracies if they have already been specified by someone else -- not
>>>>> just nationally recognized SDOs but by anyone, anywhere on earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that publishing public information in open, standard,
>>>>> machine-readable formats having the attributes specified in ISO 15489-1 is
>>>>> such a good practice.  It would be nice to think IAC might be willing and
>>>>> able to foster adoption of that good practice by its stakeholders.  That is
>>>>> the prospect that prompts my interest in participating in a presentation at
>>>>> their conference.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, here in the U.S. official policy since at least 1998 has directed
>>>>> agencies to consider using internationally adopted voluntary consensus
>>>>> standards.  Here are the applicable sections of OMB Circular A-119
>>>>> <https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-119-1.pdf>
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> h. Does this policy establish a preference between domestic and
>>>>> international voluntary consensus standards?
>>>>> This policy does not establish a preference between domestic and
>>>>> international voluntary consensus standards. However, in the interests of
>>>>> promoting trade and implementing the provisions of international treaty
>>>>> agreements, your agency should consider international standards in
>>>>> procurement and regulatory applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> i. Should my agency give preference to performance standards?
>>>>> In using voluntary consensus standards, your agency should give
>>>>> preference to performance standards when such standards may reasonably be
>>>>> used in lieu of prescriptive standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. What Is The Policy For Federal Participation In Voluntary Consensus
>>>>> Standards Bodies?
>>>>> Agencies must consult with voluntary consensus standards bodies, both
>>>>> domestic and international, and must participate with such bodies in the
>>>>> development of voluntary consensus standards when consultation and
>>>>> participation is in the public interest and is compatible with their
>>>>> missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, the problem is not the policy but, rather, the performance,
>>>>> i.e., the lack thereof in many instances.  What's needed is not more policy
>>>>> or new "strategies" but more accountability and better performance.
>>>>> Hopefully, the U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan will make a
>>>>> meaningful contribution toward that end, at least with respect to grant
>>>>> funding
>>>>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_ea289a44-2e58-11ea-bd1a-70248cbabdf6>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/3/2020 8:02 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Owen
>>>>> it will be great if we could align our work to some of these
>>>>> objectives, please keep an eye on that (my mind being very expanded at the
>>>>> moment)
>>>>> also, can we find alignment of our own work with these US based
>>>>> objectives, also with more global, less US centric strategies and goals.
>>>>> I am thinking UK EU, China and rest of the world as well
>>>>>
>>>>> pdm
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 3:35 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan for this year is now
>>>>>> available in StratML format at
>>>>>> http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#2020AP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Action 8:
>>>>>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dbd82-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>AI
>>>>>> - Improve Data and Model Resources for AI Research and Development includes
>>>>>> direction to provide an updated inventory of technical schema
>>>>>> formats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will be interesting to see if this group may have value to add in
>>>>>> support of that objective.  If so, the IAC conference
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZARdPoWeEZzld1iugl5hlaMh7aaYrJkD7SiEycXvdQ/edit>
>>>>>> in September might be a good venue in which to share it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>
>>>>>