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

RE: Draft agenda for 15/10/2008 and Use Cases

From: Sheridan, John <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:36:07 +0100
Message-ID: <88A6AFA61447AC4AB9F280FC6747F90811764FAD@na-exch1.in.tna.local>
To: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>
Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "Michael Phythian" <michael.phythian@learner.dmu.ac.uk>
See inline.

________________________________

From: Jose M. Alonso [mailto:josema@w3.org]
Sent: Tue 14/10/2008 10:27
To: Sheridan, John
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org; Michael Phythian
Subject: Re: Draft agenda for 15/10/2008 and Use Cases



Hi John,

Thanks very much for the input. I very much think this is great food 
for discussion.
In the meantime, I revamped the Use Cases wiki page to reflect we are 
discussing it:
   http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Cases

I would like to hear discussion about two main topics:
1) Modalities
Michael Pynthian already commented about this [1] and I feel there's a 
shift coming up in the models according to some articles and reports, 
but... I'm wondering if starting this way is enough; i.e. every time 
we think too much about this and that, we discuss for quite some time, 
scope gets bigger and bigger, and we are stuck there. I would like to 
hear a counter argument, rationale and proposal on another more 
sophisticated classification.

> I am sure there are more sophisticated and more accurate classifications - and Michael gave us some excellent examples. The question I would pose to the group, is what's most useful? Simple has it's place, especially when we think about explaining our work to a wider audience. Equally, *too* simple, then we're just discussing platitudes and not adding any value.

2) What is missing?
Are those ten use cases reflecting all biggest issues we should address?

Let me say again that if we can develop a number of use cases that 
could show very well the big issues, that could be very useful and 
enough for the first year of the Group. We are not required to develop 
best practices to address them, although we could do it, too.

> In my view this is the main issue for the face to face, in my view. What use cases do we need and do we pitch them closer to the technology or closer to public policy outcomes?

And... think about taking on development of use cases!

Best,
Jose.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2008Oct/0028

--
Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/


El 13/10/2008, a las 23:56, Sheridan, John escribió:
> ********************************************************************
>
> "Straw Man" Use Case framework (posted to encourage debate)
>
> We are aiming for everyone in the working group to pick and write up 
> a use case in one of the areas in the framework over the next week, 
> from the conference call to the face to face.
>
> Some areas are more important than others, for example delivering 
> public services using the web, so would potentially bear more than 
> one draft use case.
>
> I have divided Use Cases into the "provide, engage, enable" 
> modalities for government on the web.
>
> * Provide: public services on the web, either transactional or 
> information services
> * Engage: with citizens and businesses, on government terms or on 
> the citizens terms
> * Enable: public sector information re-use
>
> These roughly approximate to the task force areas of interest: Usage 
> of Web Standards, Transparency and Participation, Seamless 
> Integration of Data. The related task force areas are given for each 
> candidate use case. These necessarily overlap, but ideally each use 
> case should focus primarily on one task force area of interest.
>
> Is this too simplistic, or about right?
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> Candidate Use Cases
>
> Provide: Using the web to deliver public services
>
> 1. Transactional services (simple), involving communication between 
> citizen and one agency of government e.g. completing a tax return.
> Relates to task force areas: Usage of Web Standards (e.g. Mobile, 
> Accessibility, Security)
>
> 2. Transactional services (complex), involving back office 
> integration by three or more agencies (public or private), e.g. 
> renewing vehicle tax disc, involving data sharing between 
> government, insurance companies and garages.
> Relates to task force areas: Seamless Integration of Data, Usage of 
> Web Standards (e.g. Policy - especially privacy and consent, 
> Accessibility, Security, Semantic Web).
>
> 3. Information services (simple), involving the provision of basic 
> information to the citizen in ways they can more easily interpret, 
> e.g. interactive crime maps (as opposed to presenting tables of 
> figures)
> Relates to task force areas: Usage of Web Standards, Transparency 
> and Participation
>
> 4. Information services (complex), providing a persistent, 
> 'citable', authoritative source of information, e.g. legislation on 
> the web, or long term availability of web only official publications
> Relates to task force areas: Usage of Web Standards (e.g. Web 
> Architecture), Transparency and Participation
>
> Engage: Using the web to interact with citizens and businesses
>
> 1. Government to citizen - e.g. blogs by ministers and officials, 
> or, publishing consultation documents as wikis or with a "comment on 
> this" facilities.
> Relates to task force area: Transparency and Participation
>
> 2. Intervening in citizen to citizen dialogues - e.g. interacting 
> with  (non government / 3rd sector) online communities e.g. 
> providing advice and support to parents via an online parents forum.
> Relates to task force area: Transparency and Participation
>
> Enable: Using the web as a platform to deliver data for re-use
>
> 1. Structuring data using standards (e.g. setting out strategic 
> objectives in XML - the use case developed by Owen)
> Relates to task force areas: Seamless Integration of Data, 
> Transparency and Participation
>
> 2. Making structured data re-usable (e.g. building an API)
> Relates to task force areas: Web Standards (Web Services), Seamless 
> Integration of Data
>
> 3. Making semi-structured data re-usable (e.g. "your website is your 
> API", publishing statutory notices or job advertisements using RDFa 
> and/or GRDDL)
> Relates to task force areas: Web Standards (Semantic Web), Seamless 
> Integration of Data
>
> 4. Licensing the re-use of government data (e.g. rights expression 
> and indication of third party rights)
> Relates to task force areas: Web Standards (Policy, Semantic Web), 
> Seamless Integration of Data
>
> **********************************************************
>
> Does this cover the ground? What's missing?
>
> Please feel free to shoot this down!
>
> John.
>
> John Sheridan
>
> Head of e-Services
> Office of Public Sector Information
> 5th Floor
> 102 Petty France
> London
> SW1H 9AJ
>
> Tel: 0203 334 2785
> Fax: 0208 487 1983
>
>
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> National Archives Disclaimer
>
>
>
> This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is 
> confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended 
> recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or 
> attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return 
> email immediately and erase all copies of the message and 
> attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this 
> message and attachments that do not relate to the official business 
> of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>






______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:36:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:36:52 GMT