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

Re: Comments on Action Plan

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:41:39 +0200
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org, martin mollema <Martin.Mollema@ictu.nl>
Message-Id: <8161CA8A-8904-4C90-8020-3FC20BAADC9E@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>

Hi Owen,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond in such detail. Please, see  
comments inline.

El 20/09/2008, a las 2:54, Owen Ambur escribió:
> 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.

Ok. I fully agree with you about the stakeholders point. I have listed  
in their respective Wiki pages the names of the people that mentioned  
is willing to help with any of the TFs work. If I remember right you  
mentioned you could help with standards in US Federal Gov. so added  
your name to Stds TF and Data Integration TF, too. Please, remove it  
from there if I'm wrong and I apologize if that was the case.

Regarding scope: you may be right, too. My idea was "start simply and  
build from there". I spent 18 months interviewing people from  
governments, NGOs, industry... talking at conferences, participating  
in panels all over the World and reading tons of documentation to  
write the charter. Then others (thanks Kevin!) helped draft the final  
version. Every time I present what is there at any meeting, the  
feedback I get is "very well done, our problems are reflected there"  
sometimes also "but not all of them" (which I know) but finally a  
"please, call me when done, we are very interested in using the result  
of such a work". This is not the way W3C works. We need the  
stakeholders participating and I believe we have a very good Group of  
people with a lot of expertise. I don't believe we have motivated them  
yet though :(

So going back to the basics, starting simply and identifying the  
stakeholders is something that I hope it'll help very soon.
Chairs + TF coordinators will hold a call later this week to talk in  
detail about it and start drafting something even before the F2F.

> 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.

Scope has been an issue from the very beginning since eGov as a topic  
is huge.

We are not even required to do so. As the charter is written we are  
not even required to produce a set of Best Practices but to identify  
in which areas those BPs should be produced, and do so at a later  
stage. Of course, we can also do the BPs straight away but only if the  
scope is not that broad and we can identify a few specific areas from  
the beginning and stick to them.

> 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

Hmmm... very interesting stuff. I know that others are involved in  
similar projects. I'm copying Martin Mollema who is involved in The  
Netherlands. I'm interested in learning more about the similarities  
and differences.

We should remember ourselves W3C is an international organization and  
that we need to have a universal view of the issues. Starting with a  
country is a possibility though.

The list there seems very detailed. We would need to concentrate  
ourselves in just Web standards. Since we have a liaison with OASIS,  
we could talk to them and coordinate. We should skip some of the  
others, but also identify if we should liaise with other  
standardization organizations. From the charter: "identify any gaps to  
be filled in creating a complete suite of standards to enable open  
government information and ease the goal of linkable Public Sector  

Although this is in the text of the Transparency and Participation TF,  
this could be better suited for the Open Standards TF. In fact,  
everything is inter-related, right? :)

Something else I'd like to learn is how those standards are being  
used. In my (not vast) experience, many eGov projects lack of the most  
basic Web Architecture principles. Web Architecture is also we might  
want to use:
   @@link here to WebArch vol. 1"

I think that finding what is current practice wrt WebArch could be  
very helpful. On one hand we could learn if the principles are being  
followed and why, on the other (if not) why and what is needed. We may  
find that government requirements need our standards to add some bits  
here and there to e better suited for their job in government  
applications. That would be superb feedback!

> 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.

I would put a very tight deadline on this task and would like to see  
the results in the first public working draft of our Note(s). We need  
the stakeholder for a) though.

The 1st WD could even state what we found in the US and that we are  
working toward testing the findings universally. That should appear in  
the final version.

I would like to hear from others if the outcome would be valuable for  
them. I expect it would be, especially for those starting now to look  
into open standards policies.

> 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:
> http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=stories&domains=mysite.veri
> zon.net%2Fambur%2F&sitesearch=mysite.verizon.net%2Fambur%2F

Answering this while on a plane. I'll try to get to the docs once at  
the hotel.

> 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
> may.

I think that story telling has been proving valuable at CXO level. As  
an example, I'm still asked numerous times if W3C is doing something  
in the Mobile arena.

Stories should be very short and to the point, as we mentioned in the  
Group outline, they should be the vehicle to illustrate the underlying  
issues we should tackle. That's it.

Said that, I believe many are already identified in the charter and  
all we need is to start with 1-2 of them, identifying the stakeholders  
to take care of them, and that should be it for a start.

> 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.


I hope this discussion, upcoming Chairs+coordinators call and F2F  
could help achieve this. I know coordinators are willing to start and  
were waiting to build more consensus around specific topics. I was  
suggesting them to go ahead and talk to the few ones that showed  
interest in those topics. I believe this would help others see the way.

Thanks much!

> Owen
> -----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.
> Thanks,
> Jose.
> --
> 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 Thursday, 25 September 2008 06:29:25 UTC

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