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

http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XMLData-Reduced.htm  may be blocked for some ..
I get a ' not secure' warning (but is opens up)   .. there is an alternate
https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/  which is considered 'draft'

Agreed - SKOS service is a good match .. especially for describing 'link
content'
I very much agree that StratML  is essential for our eGovernance 'handbook'

Carl

It was a pleasure to clarify


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> Carl, the link you provided is generating a 404 error.  Is this another
> instance of it: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XMLData-Reduced.htm?
>
> Rather than reinventing the wheel, might a SKOS
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/> service suffice?
> https://inspire-reference.jrc.ec.europa.eu/vocabularies/tags/skos
>
> In any event, as I become aware of them and as time permits, I will
> continue rendering in StratML format the plans of those working on AI &
> KM-related objectives.
>
> It will be good if this group can apply the good practice of using an
> open, machine-readable data standard(s).
>
> BTW, the StratML vocabulary is available in a slightly modified version of
> SKOS, at http://stratml.us/#Glossary  However, it has not been rigorously
> updated and maintained.  The documentation in the schemas themselves is
> authoritative.
>
> Owen
> On 1/6/2020 9:04 AM, carl mattocks wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>