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

Comments on Action Plan

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:54:36 -0400
To: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <005801c91abb$74829050$5d87b0f0$@Ambur@verizon.net>

Jose, here are my responses to your questions:

1) Is the plan too large?

Yes, I think so but would love to be proven wrong -- by folks who are
willing and able to commit to and actually deliver usable results on each of
the objectives outlined in the plan.

To the degree that volunteers step forward and agree to produce
deliverables, I personally will be happy to include their objectives in a
StratML document for the IG that lists them as <Stakeholders> of the
performer type.

2) Are the right steps included in the right order?

Barring evidence to the contrary, I don't believe the eGov IG has the
resources to conduct a multi-stage process.  It seems to me we may need to
focus on deliverables that individual participants are willing and able to
produce on a relatively short timeline.  Again, I would love to be proven
wrong but, so far, evidence is lacking.  I hope others will take that as a
challenge not merely to demonstrate that I'm wrong but, more importantly, to
deliver useful results that they themselves are capable of producing.

3) Where is the existing list of standards included in the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Technical Reference Model (TRM)?

The official source of information on the TRM is
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-6-trm.html  However, since the
presentation of the data does not lend itself to referencing and reuse, I
converted it to StratML format, at http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO
or, more specifically, http://xml.gov/stratml/FEATRM.xml which is also
available with a basic stylesheet at http://xml.gov/stratml/crane/FEATRM.xml

4) How would steps b and c outlined below be carried out?

If the IG decides to focus on my suggestion to identify W3C Recommendations
and OASIS standards that are not yet in the FEA TRM but should be, I
personally will take care of steps b and c.  I would hope this task could be
accomplished in a matter of weeks, not months or years, at which point we
could decide what to do next.

5) Is there a better way than "stories" to determine how to proceed?

You've touched one of my hot buttons.  To me, stories are often *excuses*
for failure to do that which is within one's own power to do.  I address
that topic in various papers on my personal Web site, which can be retrieved
via this query:

Be that as it may, if folks are willing and able to contribute "stories,"
more power to them. Based upon what I know about the problems with stories,
I'm not sure I'll want to take the time to read them but presumably others

In any event, I challenge each of the subscribers to the listserv to produce
*something* that may be useful to others ... or stop offering false hopes
that someone else may do so someday. 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 1:00 PM
To: Owen Ambur
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org; Christopher Testa
Subject: Re: canceling 17 Sept. call; next one on 1 Oct.

Hi Owen,

Sorry for the late reply. I was traveling and offline most of the time.

El 15/09/2008, a las 19:13, Owen Ambur escribió:
> 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

Thanks for bringing up the subject. It is the first time we hear  
someone in the Group talking about it since we announced it last week.

Do you think that it's just too large or do you have any additional  
comments about its organization? Do you think the steps described  
there are the right ones and in the right order?

> 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.

My main concern so far about the Group it's been its scope. An issue  
we've been facing at W3C since we started to look into this was that  
eGovernment as topic is *huge* and I believe that if we want to  
succeed in the short term, the Group needs to be very well focused.  
Unfortunately, I don't believe we are yet.

Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me. It was the Chairs' original  
goal to do it this way, hence we choose TF coordinators as owners of  
the task topics. Unfortunately, it's taking too long for people to  
tell them if they'd like to cooperate on that given topic, and summer  
in the northern hemisphere has not helped either.

I encourage the TF coordinators to take ownership of the topics, go  
ahead on their own and hope others will join the TFs to help them.  
Fortunately, some have already showed interest and I hope those will  
fulfill the requirements you suggest above.

Chairs are arranging a call with TF coordinators asap to talk about  
this, and some more changes are coming very soon.

> 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.

I know that you and others in the Group are very knowledgeable of the  
US Federal Government stuff. I welcome the opinion of those about this.

In my opinion, some of the steps would be a bit tricky for us to  
accomplish. Although I can understand a) and that could be done with  
OASIS help (we'd need to check with them) I'm not aware of all the  
implications of going through b) and c).

Where's the existing list?

I see you are skipping here most of the preliminary steps in the Group  
Outline (stories and the like) and going directly to some of the  
specific issues already identified in the charter and giving a very  
concrete case. Do you think it's better to do our work this way?

Anyway, this is at last a very specific proposal that I welcome and  
would like to see others discussing.


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

> 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/
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2008 00:55:40 UTC

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