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

Re: document outline and content -- Re: first very rough editor's draft of group note

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:49:16 +0100
Cc: John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>
Message-Id: <9E1F1657-334A-411A-AA19-D3045E7BF435@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>

So, here summary notes about the call today related to this topic. In  
general, the idea looked good to those attending.

John, forgot to ask you how to mach the topic areas to the "provide,  
engage, enable" framework. Just a reference from the topic area to the  
modality. Btw, what to do with G2C, G2G...? I don't think we need them  
in the Note.

Once again, the pointer:
   http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note

Notes
-----
1. Outline looks good in general.
2. Target audience: projects managers, not developers.
      Doc should also serve those to show the policy makers
      the business case so topic areas should have references
      to the public policy goals they help to achieve.
3. Topic names mostly fine. Plan to have them closer to technology  
than policy is ok, but for some we should try to come up with  
something more user-friendly.
4. Need to prioritize them. Now already done:
    Participation, Open Government Data, Interoperability,
    Multi-channel, Auth, Long term
    (of course, we need use cases in order to develop them)
5. Development of every topic will have a similar structure to the  
proposed below. Need to find good names for subsections.
6. Need to state what we are talking about clearly, e.g. What is open  
government data in this Note context?
7. State business problem and use case in that context to focus on the  
problems


I think those are the important bits. If any of the call attendants  
miss something, please speak up.

I hope we could have a nearly final draft of the first two topics plus  
intro sections after the holidays.

-- Josema


El 17/12/2008, a las 14:20, Jose M. Alonso escribió:
> Just a note for the call later.
>
> I'm wondering if you have asked yourselves: what would I like to see  
> in this document that would be useful for me, that would make my  
> work easier? Please, do, in the W3C/Web context, of course.
>
> Another idea. I was involved back in the days when I was managing  
> W3C Spain in a nice outreach project. Main question was: how to make  
> people aware of the W3C technologies and the way they work?
>
> We developed several quick guides ([1], Spanish only, sorry) with  
> the following sections:
> * What is it?
> * What is for?
> * How does it work?
> * Examples
> * More information
>
> They were very successful and even others followed the format.
>
> I'm wondering if something along these lines, per topic in the Note,  
> adapted to our needs would be useful. Rough example (not well  
> thought):
> * What is Open Government Data?
> * What is Open Government Data for? (or what are the benefits?)
> * How can Open Government Data be achieved?
> * What are the barriers and main issues to achieve it?
> * Examples and Related Initiatives
>     Use Cases like your Website is your API, StratML, etc.
>
> (it's kind of an adapted version of the use case template sections,  
> if you want)
>
> I'm not how verbose every section should be though, but not much. I  
> think we should aim for a not very long document.
>
> Would that be useful? Opinions?
>
> -- Jose
>
> [1] http://w3c.es/Divulgacion/GuiasBreves/XHTML
>
>
> El 10/12/2008, a las 0:30, Jose M. Alonso escribió:
>> 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 Wednesday, 17 December 2008 19:50:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 December 2008 19:50:00 GMT