RE: canceling 17 Sept. call; next one on 1 Oct.

It may be a matter of semantics but it seems to me that Rick and I are saying the same thing.  If GSA is ready, willing, and able to make meaningful contributions, by all means, I agree those contributions should be included.  I’d be especially interested to see how their OWL representations of the FEA models can be leveraged and productively used.  I also agree with Rick’s suggestion to try to engage Kshemendra Paul of the FEA PMO as well as the CIO Council’s Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC).

 

BTW, the FEA PMO’s action plan is available in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/FEAPMOstratplan.xml and the CIOC’s strategic plan is available in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/CIOCstratplan.xml  (If OMG has a strategic plan, I’d be happy to document their goals and objectives in StratML format as well.)  It would be good to consider how the objectives contained in those plans match up with those in the eGov IG’s plan -- http://xml.gov/stratml/WEIG.xml -- and how we might jointly pursue those on which we have the capability to make productive contributions.  My only concern is that we not fail to take actions that are within our own power simply because others may not do that which we believe they should do.  

 

In short, I believe each of the objectives included in the eGov IG’s plan should have at least one specified <Stakeholder> of the performer type.  http://xml.gov/stratml/draft/StratMLCoreGlossary.xml#Stakeholder  If that’s considered to be a restriction, it seems to me that it is only a reflection of reality and that it might be better not to kid ourselves, much less others.

 

Owen

 

From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of richard.murphy@gsa.gov
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:55 PM
To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Cc: g.thomas@gsa.gov
Subject: RE: canceling 17 Sept. call; next one on 1 Oct.

 

Jose & All, although I sense the same condition that Owen has identified, I don't support Owen's suggestion to restrict the group activities. We (GSA) for one haven't had much voice yet, but we'll make a useful contribution towards each of the activities as they shape up. Our representation of the FEA Reference Models in OWL-DL is a good place to start and there's more to come, ontologies, white papers, open source projects and an FEA run-time environment in RDF, etc ...

Based on my observations of the group so far, I'd also suggest W3C start thinking about getting some face-time with the CIO Council's Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC) and Kshmendra Paul from OMB. This level of engagement should help shepherd the group's working activities to a more relevant outcome for the U.S. anyway. OMG has been working a pretty effective strategy with OMB over the past few years and I'd suggest W3C step up with an equivalent presence as a standards organization.

Who from W3C is local and can get plugged in ?

Best wishes,

Rick

office: 202-501-9199
cell: 202-557-1604

 

-----public-egov-ig-request@w3.org wrote: -----

To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
From: "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Sent by: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
Date: 09/15/2008 01:13PM
Subject: RE: canceling 17 Sept. call; next one on 1 Oct.

Jose, I'm beginning to get the sense the eGov IG may be foundering, perhaps because the scope of the Group Outline may be too large.
http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/GroupOutline 

My suggestion would be to include *only* those objectives for which at least one person has indicated willingness and ability to complete the required tasks.

Regarding standards, I'd suggest that we start with the U.S. Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Technical Reference Model (TRM) and identify
W3C Recommendations as well as OASIS standards that are not in the TRM but
should be.  See http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO &
http://www.w3.org/TR/ & http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php 

I would describe the intended result as a strategic plan for
interoperability, and if the IG decides to take on this task, I am more than willing and able to: 

a) assist in identifying standards missing from the TRM,

b) document the results in StratML format, and 

c) on behalf of the IG, use the ET.gov site/process to propose inclusion of the identified standards in the TRM.

Owen Ambur
Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP  
Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
Member, AIIM iECM Committee 
Participant, 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: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:10 PM
To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Subject: canceling 17 Sept. call; next one on 1 Oct.


Dear Group,

Given the number of regrets we got so far, including both of your  
Chairs, we are sorry to announce the cancelation of the call scheduled  
for next Wednesday, 17 Sept.
Next Group call should take place on 1 October.

We haven't heard many comments yet about the Group Outline and  
Activity Plan we proposed a few days ago, and expect you to comment  
about them in the mailing list.

We also request again topics for the Agenda that is evolving as usual  
at [1] or for the F2F meeting that will take place 23-24 October. I've  
just started a wiki page at [2]. If you are planning to attend, please  
register at [3].

Best,
Jose.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Next_Meeting
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/TPAC2008
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008


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