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

persistence and group goals -- Re: SEMIC Goals and Objectives

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:02:22 +0100
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org, Renke Fahl-Spiewack <Renke.Fahl-Spiewack@init.de>
Message-Id: <1F695231-A4F5-4D02-963A-CA543F758ECE@w3.org>
To: "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>

[+Renke, who attended the F2F on behalf of SEMIC (thanks again, Renke)]

El 30/10/2008, a las 2:31, Owen Ambur escribió:
> This is a case study of the need for persistent URLs.
> I see that SEMIC now has a new set of objectives --
> http://www.semic.eu/semic/view/snav/About_SEMIC/Objectives.xhtml?cid=33749
> -- which have been established since April 5, 2008, when I captured  
> their
> goals in StratML format, at http://xml.gov/stratml/SEMIC.xml
> Meanwhile, the page from which I copied their former goals --
> http://www.semic.eu/ 
> about_semantic_interoperability_centre_europe.html -- is
> now generating a 404 error.

And it goes on and on and on... too many examples like this around...

This is one of the errors I really hate because it's very easy to  
solve, not to mention if planned in advance.

As I mentioned on the call, my experience so far is that when you talk  
about it in technical terms to make the policy case it does not work.  
What is needed is to talk in their terms. Example: a recent meeting  
with people in charge of a national gazette (official journal where  
laws, decrees, call for tenders, etc. are published) and that is  
published on a daily basis. Paper version about to disappear, only  
online version to be available. Lots of references to a given issue  
and a given page. What if it just disappears online? Not acceptable. I  
like to think I succeed making this simple case :)

I believe that many of the things we have to say as Group are as  
simple as that. I understand some governments are already ahead of  
this, so what I envision is:
1) showing the problem with simple real examples
    (I'd favor common generic ones, not finger pointing)
2) those that are ahead to tell how they are solving it
    (including the hurdles they find on the way)
3) showing issues still unsolved that will need further consideration

It should not be that complicated. We have enough knowledge around and  
main areas are almost identified already.

If after all that, we have enough time to develop best practices based  
on that knowledge base, that would be super. We can also defer this  
part to a second phase of the Group's work and even discuss later in  
time if we want to pursue it via recommendation track work.


> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP
> Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
> Member, AIIM iECM Committee
> Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
> Membership Director, FIRM Board
> Former Project Manager, ET.gov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:40 PM
> To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Subject: SEMIC.EU slides -- Re: [minutes] eGov IG call - 29 Oct 2008
>> ...
>> 1. Semantic Interoperability
>>  <martin> info on [15]http://www.semic.eu/semic/
>>    [15] http://www.semic.eu/semic/
>> ...
> Slides in HTML: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/SEMIC_W3C.htm
> Slides in PPT: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/SEMIC_W3C.ppt
> -- Jose
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 09:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:39 UTC