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

Re: [minutes] eGov IG call, 17 Dec 2008

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:22:41 +0100
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6CC7ACA1-363D-493C-B6B1-E06EB788F667@w3.org>
To: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>

Forgot to add. Many, many thanks to John for help scribing!

J.


El 17/12/2008, a las 20:28, Jose M. Alonso escribió:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Daft minutes are at:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-minutes
>
> and as text at the end of the message. Please, send comments before  
> my (CET) EOB tomorrow. I'm sending a separate message with a summary  
> on the discussion about the Group Note.
>
> -- Jose
>
> ----------
>
>   [1]W3C
>
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                               - DRAFT -
>
>               eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference
>
> 17 Dec 2008
>
>   See also: [2]IRC log
>
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          josema, chris, rachel (part), john, kevin (part)
>
>   Regrets
>          owen, martin, kjetil, rinke, ari, jeff
>
>   Chair
>          john
>
>   Scribe
>          josema, john
>
> Contents
>
>     * [3]Topics
>         1. [4]agenda adjustments
>         2. [5]outline of document
>         3. [6]open actions
>         4. [7]next meeting
>     _________________________________________________________
>
> agenda adjustments
>
>   john: any?
>
>   josema: reminding people of dates and location of 2nd F2F
>   ... proposed 12-13 March at AIA in DC, USA
>   ... please, send feedback
>
>   chris: good for me
>
>   rachel: good for me, hope I could find funding to go there
>
>   john: please, let us know if we can help to justify the importance
>   of the trip
>
> outline of document
>
>   [8]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note
>
>      [8] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note
>
>   josema: we have outline, not spectacular yet, outline taken from
>   relevant messages from mailing list, use cases and wiki
>   ... difficult to categorise the issues, we have many different
>   dimensions of view
>   ... some conversation are out of scope for W3C as policy related.
>   Aim to show how to use W3C standards in a good way
>   ... every use case is relevant in several areas, then we repeat the
>   dimensions problem
>   ... example with transparency from john the other day - not a
>   technical topic, so changed to open government data
>
>   chris: whatabout social media - how to nail that from policy versus
>   standards?
>   ... we could surface, what are standards that underpin web 2.0 sites
>   ... want to see building of the business case for those at policy
>   level
>
>   john: another relevant point is how government can make good use of
>   this 2.0 stuff to do better decision making
>   ... Sweden taking over EU Presidency, it's my understanding they
>   have much interest on this
>   ... endorses the point you are making, problem is not about
>   technology
>
>   chris: how does W3C look at social media issues?
>
>   john: e.g. what if you are putting video on youtube?, then you have
>   issue with content accessibility
>   ... what about data portability?
>   ... these issues have been discussed for years in W3C
>   ... hence the workshop in Barcelona (Spain)
>   ... depending on views of members, could be a basis for charter
>
>   rachel: I'm having hard time separating policy from standards
>   ... in the US, new government will make greater use of these tools
>   ... maybe we should also consider the idea of what is doable and
>   what is not?
>   ... 2.0 is all about enabling, how to help government structure
>   their data so that allow people
>   ... to access that data to find the answers to their questions
>   ... help people to help themselves
>
>   john: agree, difficult to separate, very related
>   ... but in terms of the Note, what do we want as headings?
>   ... policy-like vs. more technology-like
>   ... I can give example
>   ... say US gov has to decide what information to keep long-term,
>   what to destroy
>   ... two public policy objectives that may be contradictory
>   ... keeping as less as you can vs. keep as much as you can
>   ... you can use technology to help you with any of those
>   ... our hope is as a W3C Group, to start with technology and go up
>   to the policy area
>   ... eg. you can use this technology to fulfill this policy goal,
>   this way
>
>   chris: going through the draft, we should state this somewhere in
>   the draft
>   ... as early as possible in the document
>
>   rachel: yes, sometimes we want to do this or that but it's not
>   doable because of a given regulation
>
>   chris: agree
>
>   [john goes through areas in the draft]
>
>   [also about perceived hierarchy]
>
>   josema on [9]how to describe topics based]
>
>      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2008Dec/0043
>
>   josema: the structure is based on personal experience talking to
>   people
>   ... outreaching type documentation has been very useful in past from
>   W3C point of view
>   ... most people reading documentation won't necessarily have in
>   depth understanding
>   ... we also have lots of vocabulary issues - people using different
>   language for same idea/concept
>   ... documentation broader than developers, more project managers
>   etc.
>
>   rachel:we need reference points - what things are and why
>
>   chris: this is why we should take business case point of view
>
>   josema: use use cases to highlight real projects using this or that
>   technology
>
>   chris: potentially restating business problem, then use case in that
>   context
>   ... focus on the problems
>
>   josema: on holidays from tomorrow - aim to have one or two sections
>   finalised for group to see over them
>
>   rachel: put open gov and engagement to the top
>
>   chris: terminology is important, use terms that will attract people
>
>   [rachel leaves]
>
>   john: interesting thing for me is two hot topics prioritized
>   ... engagement and open government data
>   ... which does not mean there are not lot of people working on the
>   other issues
>   ... one selling point for OGD is our use of RDFa, that also helps
>   solve some interoperability problems
>
>   [jose explains back/front of Multi-Channel delivery]
>
>   chris: better to use "access" than "delivery"
>
>   john: I've learned something there, in the UK context we talk about
>   delivery
>   ... we even have a Council named after that, working of the kind of
>   issues jose mentioned
>   ... the Delivery Council
>
>   chris: maybe we need both there
>
>   josema: we need textual description of all the topics
>   ... do we prioritise the topics
>
>   chris: Participation, Open Government Data, Interop, Long term,
>   Auth, Multi-Channel
>   ... if I had to prioritize
>
>   john: I would agree with first three, probably then do:
>   Multi-channel, Auth, Long term
>   ... but can we wrap Auth something else? eg. Multi Channel?
>
>   josema: I think it's big enough to stay and Martin is working on it
>   (see [10]ACTION-15)
>
>     [10] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/15
>
>   chris: +1 to john's order
>
>   josema: +1 to start with those
>
>   chris: and try to come up with more user friendly terminology
>
>   kevin: have several things drafted on paper, will work on the
>   computer
>   ... and deliver something in a week or so from today
>
>   john: I will send something on the deadline or around it
>
>   josema: it's difficult to write the doc without the use cases
>
>   john: optimistic about setting up the deadline, hope more cases by
>   then
>
>   chris: do we have anyone working on long term?
>   ... I could write some on persistence
>
>   trackbot, comment [11]ACTION-34 chris to write a high level
>
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/34
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-34 Document "Handle" use for THOMAS as use case
>   for 2.Persistent URIs notes added
>
> open actions
>
>   [skipping this one]
>
> next meeting
>
>   [next meeting: 7 Jan; 14:00Z]
>
>   [ADJOURNED]
>
>   [End of minutes]
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version 1.133
>    ([13]CVS log)
>    $Date: 2008/12/17 16:16:55 $
>
>     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:23:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:23:24 GMT