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

Fwd: [minutes] eGov IG - 25 June 2008

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:04:05 +0200
Message-Id: <CFD414EB-90E6-4437-9822-26AFB42FA208@w3.org>
To: public-egov-ig@w3.org

Ouch! Resending with the text version below as promised. Sorry about  

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

> Reenviado por: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> De: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>
> Fecha: 25 de junio de 2008 18:00:11 GMT+02:00
> Para: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Asunto: [minutes] eGov IG - 25 June 2008
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7B106DBB-9903-41CE-8C67-CF87A0B6E9D3@w3.org 
> >
> Hi all,
> Minutes of today's kick-off telecon are avilable at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-egov-minutes
> ... and also as text below.
> Topics
> 1. Scribe selection
> 2. Welcome and practicalities
> 3. Review of Agenda Items
> 4. Intro: 2 minutes round the table
> 5. Use Cases and Requirements
> 6. Liaisons: review charter ones, new proposed ones
> 7. Next Meeting
> Resolutions
> 1. the telcon time stays as is
> 2. next meeting : July 9th
> People with Action Items
> Chris, Ari, Oscar: open a new section in the wiki for
>                    use cases for their respective TF
> See also the Group's tracker:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/
> [mental note: add Chris and Oscar and action them there]
> Best,
> Jose.
> --
> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

25 Jun 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2008Jun/0002

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-egov-irc


           Jose M. Alonso, Robin Berjon, Kjetil Kjernsmo, John Sheridan,
           Roberto Castaldo, Peter Krantz, Owen Ambur, Kevin Novak,
           Herbert Leitold, Ari Schwartz, Oscar Azañon, Katie
           Haritos-Shea, Vassilios Peristeras

           Kevin, Jose

           Robin, Jose


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Scribe selection
          2. [6]Welcome and practicalities
          3. [7]Review of Agenda Items
          4. [8]Intro: 2 minutes round the table
          5. [9]Use Cases and Requirements
          6. [10]Liaisons: review charter ones, new proposed ones
          7. [11]Next Meeting
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

Scribe selection

    Jose: thanks Robin!

Welcome and practicalities

    Jose: I'll explain how things work, please talk to me if you have
    ... it's not mandatory to be on IRC, but it's helpful
    ... it makes scribing and out-of-band discussion easier
    ... there are details on
    ... we are scheduled to meet every other week
    ... it's hard to find a good time, rotating schedules can be done
    but we're not sure they work — opinions welcome
    ... this time is not so good for Asia, and really bad for AU/NZ

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Teleconferences

    [group is silent]

    Jose: is this time okay?

    Silent assent from the group

    <Mercedes> It works for me

    <RobertoCastaldo> should be ok for me

    RESOLUTION: the telcon time stays as is

    Katie: we're not allowed to use IRC bridges in (US?) government

    <peter_krantz> [14]http://www.mibbit.com/

      [14] http://www.mibbit.com/

    John: I have independent access, otherwise I wouldn't be able to

    Katie: I confirm that

    Katie: using the RRSAgent minutes is helpful

    Robin: they're generally emails after the meeting too

    <josema> close this agendum

    <josema> move to next agendum

Review of Agenda Items

    Ari: Ari Schwartz, Center for Democracy and Technology
    ... I work on eGov/OpenGov issues, privacy

    Jose: I'm José Manuel Alonso, I work for CTIC and lead this activity
    as a Fellow

    Kevin: Kevin Novak, The American Institute of Architects, co-chair
    ... have been doing eGov as the (US?) federal level for fifteen

    <peter_krantz> Verva, the Swedish Administrative Development Agency:

      [15] http://verva.se/english/

    Peter: Peter Krantz, from Verva in Sweden, working on eGov and

    Peter: Robin Berjon, self employed, working for long on standards,
    much interest in eGov

    Kjetil: Kjetil Kjernsmo, Computas
    ... a fair share of our business is in the public sector, I've long
    been involved with W3C, and previously with Opera

    John: John Sheridan, The National Archives

    <robin> nothing wrong with a bit of confusion :)

    <josema> yep, Mercedes, this usually happens ;)

    <Mercedes> Head of Online Product Strategy (nee Head of Web Team) at
    The National Archives. No experience of W3C and mildly confused.

    John: my role is information policy, notably information reuse,
    interest in SemWeb

    Robin: nothing wrong with a bit of confusion :)

    Roberto: Roberto Castaldo, IWA-HWG
    ... Italian chapter, coordinator of IWA [scribe can't hear]
    ... I am a teacher in secondary school and in the private sector too
    ... also working on WCAG
    ... absolutely necessary to start this group
    ... need to outreach more about open standards to Govs

    <RobertoCastaldo> I'm the coordinator of
    [16]http://webaccessibile.org, an italian resource about Web

      [16] http://webaccessibile.org/

    Owen: Owen Ambur, retired US civil servant with extensive experience
    ... xml.gov, StratML

    <josema> see

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Related_Initiatives

Intro: 2 minutes round the table

    <pasquale> please, irc me when I can present myself

    Owen: Principal Architect at State Government of Asturias
    ... first time at W3C

    Katie: US Federal Gov as contractor,
    ... providing financial services to banking systems
    ... interested in usability, providing services to citizens

    Vassilios: DERI IE, Semantic Web for eGov

    <vassilios> www.deri.ie for an overview of DERI

    [Pasquale introduces himself on IRC]

    <pasquale> Pasquale Popolizio, IWA-HWG, I'm a Web accessibility
    specialist and

    <pasquale> a Web Semantic researcher, from Naples, Italy, EU.

    <pasquale> I work for University of Naples Federico II for its
    e-learning program

    <pasquale> [18]http://www.federica.unina.it

      [18] http://www.federica.unina.it/

    <pasquale> and for FORMEZ

    <pasquale> [19]http://www.formez.it

      [19] http://www.formez.it/

    <pasquale> a Government Agency for education,

    <pasquale> or evaluating the Web accessibility of Regional

    <pasquale> Government of Campania Web sites.

    <pasquale> I also participate into W3C WAI Education & Outreach WG,
    Internationalization (I18N)

    <pasquale> Core Group and HTML WG.

    <pasquale> I created and maintain the Italian resource about Sem
    Web, websemantico.org,

    <pasquale> where you can find articles and Italian translation about
    Sem Web.

    <pasquale> My desire: an accessible Web more Semantic, and a
    Semantic Web more accessible.

    <pasquale> linkedin profile:

      [20] http://www.linkedin.com/in/pasqualepopolizio

    <pasquale> hi all, and thank you ;-)

Use Cases and Requirements

    Kevin:the three main topic areas are outlined in the charter
    ... we should focus first on use cases and research that already
    ... there are already quite a few people working this area

    <josema> some topics:

    <josema> [[ * Work and practicalities

    <josema> * Avoiding scope problems

    <josema> * Identification of challenges

    <josema> * Charter deliverables

    <josema> (see:

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter#deliverables)

    <josema> * W3C process and Group Notes

    <josema> (see: [22]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)

      [22] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)

    <josema> * Task Forces coordination]]

    Kevin: by the end of this year we could develop an issues paper for
    the following work

    Jose: a year is short, so we need to be very focused and scope our
    work clearly
    ... picking a few very specific use cases from which to draw
    requirements by the end of the year
    ... and based on that try to tackle those problems
    ... this will be complicated, eGov is a huge topic
    ... we are not that many to tackle so many issues
    ... the question: how do you envision the group's work?

    Jose: we have an example here in the EU of a website compiling a lot
    of information on eGov
    ... but it's difficult to extract the most common issues that need
    to be solved
    ... the charter is quite ambitious
    ... we need to narrow down the scope of those three areas so that
    it's manageable

    <peter_krantz> [23]http://www.epractice.eu/

      [23] http://www.epractice.eu/

    Robin: agree, we should narrow the scope early
    ... takes time to produce just one document

    Ari: I agree, it can take a lot of time to produce W3C documents,
    and it can take a lot of time to work on eGov issue, so we have
    potential catastrophe here

    Jose: Chris will coordinate the first TF "Usage of Web Standards",
    Ari "Transparency and Participation", and Oscar "Seamless
    Integration of Data"

    <josema> Chris Testa, USHMM; [24]http://www.ushmm.org/

      [24] http://www.ushmm.org/

    Oscar: I completely agree about the scope issues, so I would say
    that we should first make an overview of different areas

    [someone is breathing into their phone]

    Oscar: we need to be very specific, otherwise the group is going to
    get lost

    [I'm not sure that's exactly what he said, someone was enacting
    Darth Vader at the same time]

    Ari: there's been a lot of discussion about e-Democracy and many
    projects, and narrowing the focus to where we can be most useful as
    a group

    Kevin: at least for the first year, though we have three TFs we
    believe it is best to have the entire IG meet as one to encourage
    discussion and focus

    Jose: we were reviewing different approaches, and we saw a number of
    docs being Foo Use Cases & Requirements

    <josema> example:

      [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/

    <josema> different example:

      [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/

    Jose: then we have "Literature Review" document, which take a
    different approach

    Kjetil: the POWDER UC is mostly targeted towards developing a very
    specific technology, and used as a way to check that the technology
    solution matched the requirements
    ... for POWDER it was useful

    Robin: XBC use cases, not to produce technical solution?
    ... integrating views of different stakeholders
    ... even if not all the use cases are there, useful enough as a

    Oscar: we all have different backgrounds, and that should help us to
    have a more general approach
    ... we should all make a list of use cases, and see which ones we
    pick. And then later produce useful standards
    ... so we start general and get more specific

    Kevin: agreed, and it should all be posted to the wiki (and to

    <scribe> ACTION: Oscar to open a new section in the wiki for use
    cases for his TF [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Oscar

    <scribe> ACTION: Ari to open a new section in the wiki for use cases
    for his TF [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Open a new section in the wiki for use
    cases for his TF [on Ari Schwartz - due 2008-07-02].

    <scribe> ACTION: Chris to open a new section in the wiki for use
    cases for his TF [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Chris

    Ari: how far do we intend to take public participation?

    Jose: for those who have worked in a WG before, you'll know that the
    tools have been developed to do Rec-track work, in private
    ... this group is different, and the tools have had to be
    reconfigured, things are changing
    ... other Groups working in public, too
    ... I myself would like this group be as open as possible
    ... lower every barrier that can lowered
    ... the Process creates formalities, but everyone is welcome
    ... we are encouraging Invited Experts
    ... we have a very understanding W3M wrt IEs
    ... I hope you don't mind that people will have access to everything
    ... only the group members can write, but everyone can read (and
    membership is open anyway)
    ... I was thinking about generating our documents from the Wiki,
    everyone could see the evolution of the draft
    ... the minutes of this call are logged publicly, and will be
    emailed right after

    Kevin: I think that the openness is very important, many people
    might not have the financial option of participating, and being
    public helps make sure that we are accountable to our requirements
    ... I hope we can get smart people out there to join as IEs

    <vassilios> Could someone prepare an invitation email for promoting
    these kind of participation?

    John: I agree with that, but I would like to note that if you're an
    official working for a govt there may be some things that you cannot
    say publicly
    ... there are things that we would be willing to share if not
    attributable, off the record, and some of those might be amongst the
    more interesting

    <josema> Yep, Vassilios, any specific topics you'd like to addressed

    Kevin: I very much understand that point, and we might develop a way
    to have a backchannel for those situations

    Jose: you can always ask the scribe to take you off the record
    ... we can also have a separate mailing list or a member-only wiki
    ... if there is value for that, I can set it up

    Owen: I have a very strong preference for openness, especially since
    we're working on Transparency & Participation

    <vassilios> Returning back to the content, could we introduce a
    round where WG participants could send to the TF leaders ideas for
    possible inclusion in future discussions?

    <robin> you can always propose agenda items on the mailing list

    Jose: let's talk about the liaisons

Liaisons: review charter ones, new proposed ones

    Kevin: OASIS is asking that we don't duplicate efforts, and their
    eGov activity is being resurrected
    ... we talked Monday about that and about potential synergies

    <josema> some here:

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Related_Initiatives

    <josema> some more here:

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter#coordination.external

    Kevin: we could co-lead conferences or events
    ... we could meet regularly, share docs

    Jose: we are chartered to talk to other organisations
    ... usual discussion is "we would love to chat with you"
    ... the problem of course is one of scope

    <vassilios> [32]http://www.semic.eu/semic/

      [32] http://www.semic.eu/semic/

    <vassilios> [33]http://osor.eu/

      [33] http://osor.eu/

    Jose: governments expect from us a suite of open standards that
    would help them achieve their goals
    ... they need an integrated solution to their problems

    <josema> [34]http://www.oasis-egov.org/

      [34] http://www.oasis-egov.org/

    Jose: OASIS had a Technical Committee (TC), kinda W3C WG, but
    switched to a less technical approach
    ... their charter looks very similar to ours
    ... that is not because one copied on the other, but simply because
    we are getting our information from the same sources and hearing
    same challenges
    ... there is common ground that could be explored
    ... they also have their first call this week
    ... ongoing discussion with them

    Kevin: any opinion?

    Peter: I think it's important to collaborate to avoid duplicate
    standards which create confusion

    <RobertoCastaldo> Completely agree, standards cannot be duplicated

    John: if we are missing links, it should tell us who we want to
    bring into this group

    <robin> in other groups there are "Liaison Officers"

    <robin> I think that joint work can be great but you still want one
    person to be responsible for the contact so that the link isn't
    dropped IMHO

    Oscar: we should focus on common objectives
    ... I would be more than happy to map to StratML this group and
    other groups so that we can see common goals

    John: we should be clear about where we as individuals are
    participating elsewhere, that can help a lot in creating links

    <RobertoCastaldo> agree

    Kevin: I think that's a great idea, are people open to posting it to
    the wiki

    John: completely open about that

    <ari> agree

    <Mercedes> Sorry, I have to go. Useful discussion though.

    Jose: we should talk about the status of liaisons regularly
    ... I will talk to the OASIS people about StratML

    Owen: it's under the auspices of AIM [there was echo]

Next Meeting

    Jose: I will be on holidays most of July, I don't know how the group
    feels about moving ahead without me
    ... I personally encourage you to work
    ... the telcon is scheduled, the bots will work, the only possible
    issue could be minutes

    <johnlsheridan> Lets go for another in July

    RESOLUTION: we will have our regular meetings without josema, next:
    July 9th

    Kevin: I encourage everyone to use email and the wiki so that we
    don't lose momentum between calls


Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ari to open a new section in the wiki for use cases
    for his TF [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Chris to open a new section in the wiki for use cases
    for his TF [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Oscar to open a new section in the wiki for use cases
    for his TF [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([39]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/06/25 15:58:02 $

      [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 16:04:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:38 UTC