W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > December 2008

first very rough editor's draft of group note

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:30:33 +0100
Message-Id: <7551122A-C8AA-4725-AA9E-863F4F1DA08F@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Cc: Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>, Óscar Azañón <oscarae@princast.es>

Hi all,

This message is a bit long but important, please read and comment.

The very first rough editor's draft is at:
   http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note

Do not expect anything spectacular yet. There are many comments  
enclosed in "@@" for discussion and no text is final by any means. It  
will be evolving there based on discussions and your input is very  
much needed.

This is mainly to discuss about the structure. I expect heavy  
discussion about it on the Group call and by email.

The main issue for me is that of categorization. We have too many  
different points of view and classifications/modalities:
  * provide, engage, enable
  * G2G, G2C, C2G
  * Topic Areas
  * Use Cases
  * ...

Oscar and I have tried to come up with a short and to the point  
perspective. We asked ourselves what the target audience is and what  
the goal of the document is (some in John's text on "provide, engage,  
enable") We think it's one of the main Group's goals to make W3C  
better speak in government terms, and that several of the topic areas  
identified at the F2F are too technical for that audience so we tried  
to Group them in areas more used by the audience and that are easier  
for them to recognize. Not sure if we did it well. Opinions?

As an example, take "Persistent URIs". This is a technical topic. An  
eGov topic may be "Long term archiving" or "Long term data  
management", and "Persistent URIs" may be one of the means to achieve  
it. We thought that some topic areas where translatable 1to1 such as  
"Identification and Authentication". I'm still missing some eGov  
terminology there anyway...

If this would be the way to go, we'd need one generic use case to  
illustrate every eGov topic area (we have 6 in there, in no particular  
order):
   * Identification and Authentication
   * Multi-channel delivery
   * Long term data management
   * Participation and Citizen Engagement
   * Transparency
   * Interoperability

The plan would be to follow a bottom up approach:
  * Ongoing compilation of use cases
  * Take use cases that describe real projects
  * Group similar ones into generic ones
  * Exemplify every eGov area with a generic one
    (we'd need 6 generic ones for now)

My main issue so far is that there are too many dimensions and I'm  
still not sure what is the best way to go. Sometimes it reminds me of  
the multiple dimensions of interoperability in the EIF 2.0 draft [1]  
(page 20).
This is where we need the most input now. I hope I'm not confusing  
people even more and hope to give a more and better detailed  
explanation on the call.

For every one of those final generic cases, we would use almost the  
same structure as that of the ones we are compiling in the wiki, may  
be that some fields are missing or not needed. The idea is for every  
of those cases to describe the eGov topic area, what's happening, what  
are potential ways to improve it and issues found. Probably the use  
case that is closest to this is so far is:
   http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Case_5_-_Your_Website_is_your_API

With all the issues found, we'd draft the "Next Steps" (or whatever  
would be the name of that section) and show some potential ways to  
address them. It may be that we find that a standard is missing here  
or there and that we propose to create it. It may be that there are  
already best practices to address some, and we just need to point to  
them... etc... I think we haven't reached the maturity as a Group to  
develop Best Practices yet, but cold propose to do so at a later  
stage. It would make one nice followup to this first document.

Well, that's it for now. Hope it's useful. Talk to some of you on the  
phone in a few hours.

Cheers,
Jose.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31597

--
Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 23:31:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 December 2008 23:31:15 GMT