W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

[minutes] eGov IG call, 1 April 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:49:07 +0200
Message-Id: <AFDC3869-A231-449A-AA66-71E064068004@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Available at:


and as text below. Comments, as usual, by beginning of my Friday (CET).

Thanks much Daniel once again for scribing today.

Note that two new actions were created to fill content of empty  
sections by April 15. Still open to more volunteer authors.

Next Group call: April 15, 9:00EST, 14:00Z, 15:00CET.

-- Jose



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

01 Apr 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-irc


           Rachel, Jose, Daniel, Ken, Owen, Dave, Kevin, John, Joe,


           Kevin, John



      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Any new Members around? Intros.
          2. [5]Group Note Issues
          3. [6]F2F2 Meeting debrief and actions
          4. [7]2nd Charter and way forward
          5. [8]What's going on out there?
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <josema> trackbot, start telcon

    <trackbot> Date: 01 April 2009

    <dmcallis> dmcallis == DaveMcAllister, Adobe (magic decoder ring)

    <josema> scribe: Daniel

    <josema> scribeNick: Daniel_Bennett

Any new Members around? Intros.

    Dave: Hello from Adobe (DaveMcAllister)

    Ken: Hi to group

    <josema> [dave leads standards work at Adobe]

Group Note Issues

    Kevin: talking about comments on group notes
    ... issue of ensuring that notes can be read by non-technical
    ... we still have a ways to go on changing text to easier to
    understand by non-techs

    Jose: I will put a link on IRC of the tracker that we can use to
    take in comments/edits
    ... I have been taking some good comments from outside and use the
    .... trying to find a balance on how to handle input.: I can still
    type some

    <josema> [10]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

    Kevin: Has a comment for Daniel about format of his section

    Jose: had comment that Daniel's section should reflect overall

    Daniel: says I know and will change the document accordingly

    <john> Sorry I'm late - just joined the call

    Kevin: thinks that use cases and more solutions should be added

    Daniel: I agree

    John: Hi

    Jose: how should we handle the comment period by April 26
    ... how to handle editing while comments are coming in?

    Daniel: It will get complicated if we don't hold off on editing.

    Kevin: I agree that it will be hard to account for changes made
    while edits are coming out.

    <dmcallis> I agree. We should consider them (and potential
    resolutions) but leave the document static till the open date ends

    Kevin: This may be a problem for dates, but still a problem to keep

    John: I agree.

    Kevin: If we try to get to everything done by date that may not be
    helpful for the standards.

    Jose: Process wise for W3C we need to either ask for a delay or we
    need to finish by the date.

    Kevin: I would like to have effort to finish the charter in time.
    Delay only if must.
    ...trying to keep a lot happening while respecting the process.

    Jose: laughs (you know I have to play the conscience role, devil's
    advocate, whatever you call it in English)

    <john> devils advocate?

    Jose: my question is answered. first wait for comments then work on
    ... we need a call for additional authors.
    ... not written in stone who the authors are, please, please, please
    ... especially new members

    <dmcallis> will review the sections to see if I can add value as

    Kevin: You did put out a call before
    ... I talked with Larry Masinter at Adobe about some of the sections

    Kevin: If we target the 15th for new material would that be a good

    John: agrees

    Kevin: is that reasonable for the authors?

    <josema> [11]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-egov-improving-20090310/

      [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-egov-improving-20090310/

    Jose: not done sections are- Multi-channel Deliver and Long term
    data mgnt.
    ... I can not do much of the Multi-Channel Delivery so still looking
    for someone, Long Term Data was going to be with Chris

    Kevin: Chris has an outline

    Jose: Chris told me at F2F that it is almost done

    Kevin: I will talk to him tomorrow.

    Jose: Just publish or work on stuff as soon as possible
    ... use the wiki

    <josema> editor's draft:

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

    Joe: asks for link to editable for editing

    <josema> I personally would prefer to have something on
    [13]http://www.w3.org/Mobile/ at least

      [13] http://www.w3.org/Mobile/

    Joe: what about just dropping Multi Channel or what is that?

    Kevin: We will try and get this dealing with social, etc. included

    Joe: just say mobile? and focus on interop

    <dmcallis> multi channel == mobile, MID, desktop, living room (TV)

    <dmcallis> major impact on data viewing structure

    <josema> right Dave, issue is a)we don't have expertise in Group to
    talk about all of that b)we decided at the F2F that Mobile was
    enough for now

    Joe: should we stay on basics?

    <josema> are you volunteering? :)

    Owen: Obama is telling US agencies to keep it simple and raw.

    Kevin: keep context out there, but we are trying to bring in all

    <dmcallis> and the US is behind in the multi channel space

    Daniel: shouldn't we deal with syndication, Twitter, Facebook for
    Multi Channel

    Kevin: we should formulate the base.
    ... we should cite the standards.

    <josema> +1 to Owen!

    <josema> on two way street with socmed sites

    Daniel: shouldn't we address the standards as a way of explaining
    how to deal with social media.

    Owen: Social Media should work on using standards so that govt can

    Dave: Social Media is experimenting so no standards should apply at

    Owen: important for govt. should not participate with non-standards

    Joe: what about syndication

    Dave: explains the mechanism.

    <josema> [14]GSA signs deals for agencies to use social networking

      [14] http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090325_5490.php

    <josema> remember also that social media incubator at W3C is coming
    and we'll coordinate with them

    Rachel: wanted to let you know that the folks in govt trenches are
    dealing with legal issues
    ... TOS issues
    ... it takes govt a while to meet legal concerns first
    ... we are working on it

    Kevin: it took Library of Congress 9 months to deal with Flickr
    because of legal issues, technical ones were done in a week

    <dmcallis> The mechanism for most feeds to twitter et.al. is a
    specific API between the feed (text) to twitter. There are
    commercial sites (such as TweetLater) that offer these serviices.

    Rachel: social media issues published.

    <dmcallis> The concern is where to draw the line of social media
    sites. They appear often, offer new capabilities

    Daniel: shouldn't that be posted as a USE CASE for the eGov group

    <josema> clearly, we aim for data-in data-out

    Ken: May be the committee should address the broader issues
    ... build the framework that government operates under.

    <Owen> I need to leave at 10:00 to go to a meeting with folks at the
    U.S. Courts to discuss records management issues.

    <Owen> I hope someone can compile a summary report from the F2F,
    particularly a listing of follow-up action items, if any.

    Rachel: govts need to be seen where people are

    <dmcallis> do we need to express such data (video) as a recommended
    standard? encoders/decoders?

    Rachel: Social Media folks have been accommodating

    <Owen> With respect to the way forward, it seems to me that it would
    be best to focus on one or two objectives that we can accomplish
    fairly quickly and well. However, I suspect the reality is that
    relatively few of us want to work on the same objectives. If not, I
    suppose the best we can do is take whatever any of us may be willing
    and able to contribute.

    <dmcallis> did we arrive at the definition of this section ?
    Multi-channel == socila media?

    <josema> thanks Owen, I'll make sure to bring this up

    Ken: should talk about other forms of reaching out to placing ads,

    <Owen> Dave, if you're not already aware of StratML and the PDF form
    we have used to convert many strategic plans to StratML format, I'd
    like to exchange E-mail with you about it. My address is

    <dmcallis> sure: dmcallis@adobe.com

    <josema> [Owen leaves call]

    Daniel: suggests breaking up Multi channel should be broken into
    data standards versus social policy

    Joe and Ken:Twitter is both syndication and online chat

    Joe: Should govt pick winners?

    Ken: future of public service announcements should be discussed

    <dmcallis> concern on the aggregator. as this new media evolves,
    many data types in play, many channels. twitter is simple, video is
    harder. converstaions bring own channels

    Daniel:though putting out multiple forms of information needs to be
    addressed in paper.
    ...this discussion points out that the discussion needs to be
    reflected in Group Note.

    <dmcallis> agreed. this needs to be addressed, perhaps as best
    practices rather than standards

    Kevin: it takes a bit of work to participate with outside media.

    Ken: there is no one place to help promote information

    <dmcallis> portal approach ++ social broadcast?

    <josema> +1, I think this Group's work is way more Best Practices
    than Standards and that we should coordinate with the other Groups
    doing technical work as appropriate

    <kevin> Jose, agree that is a good approach

    Ken: more efforts to get info out

    <josema> there you have it, we _only_ need to choose the topics ;)

    <dmcallis> apologies. will need to drop off early today

    thanks Dave for participating

    <daniel> can we come to a decision on this?

    John: I suggest creating a London Gazzette for U.S.

    [Ken and Rachel: discussion of how to publish data more openly]

    <kevin> ok will do

    <josema> no matter what we start to discuss (remember: it was
    multi-channel) we end up discussing OGD

    <josema> in the end it's all about the data!

    Kevin: lets bring this to conclusion

    Ken:how to decrease burden of publishing on both the govt and

    <john> good discussion!

    <josema> +1 to Kevin

    <josema> no time to do that in a month but we should consider it as
    year 2 work

    Kevin: We need to add in this

F2F2 Meeting debrief and actions

    <josema> [15]W3C Technology Survey

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/25-TechSurvey/

    Kevin: we dealt in ways with F2F, mentioned the TechSurvey
    ... spoke to data.gov about what would be helpful
    ... more specifics on incorporating these efforts

    [Kevin and Jose: discuss about summary doc]

    Kevin: asks folks from the F2F to look summary over

    <josema> [16]Summary Report

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/eGov_F2F2_report

    Kevin: Please look at summary
    ... I will be at The World Bank meeting on April, 17th

    <josema> all kudos on Tech Survey should go to my colleague Eric
    Prud'hommeaux (W3C), I just made a couple comments

    Kevin: from meeting with Beth, we now do have attendee list
    ... thanks to all at F2F

    <john> +1 kevin's thanks

    Jose: wants to finish the Multi Channel and we need to give Apr.
    15th deadline on this.
    ... and the other section too

    <josema> RESOLUTION: content for Multi-Channel and Long Term to be
    provided by April 15th

    Joe: should govt distribution be part of Multi Channel

    <daniel> seconds the resolution

    <josema> ACTION: Chris to provide content for long term due
    2009-04-15 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Chris

    Daniel:Dave seemed to be interested in data standards for Multi

    Kevin: we have hashed out this

    Ken: willing to write it up

    Kevin: lets get just a paragraph done to encapsulate this discussion
    re: Multi

    <josema> ACTION: Ken to summarize approach to Multi Channel
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Summarize approach to Multi Channel
    [on Ken Fischer - due 2009-04-08].

    Ken: agrees to put that paragraph

2nd Charter and way forward

    <josema> [briefly]

    Kevin: lets try to define what we are looking at

    Jose: will be with us as his contract continued to end of year

    <daniel> yeah!

    Jose: there is a process for W3C to deal with charter, we need to
    focus on year 2 issues

    <john> so no implications asking for an extension of a month?

    Kevin: no implications if we need the time.

    <josema> AFAIR, shouldn't be any difficult; IIRC extensions are
    approved by W3M

What's going on out there?

    Kevin: did an interview with GCN
    ... Karen is working on more publicity
    ... getting more members
    ... any more issues?

    John: Cloud computing is not mentioned
    ... perhaps it should be addressed

    Kevin: WSJ article last week talking about this

    <john> +1 josema

    <john> good call, thanks everyone

    Jose: expecting more conversation with charter next
    ... week

    Kevin: adjourns


Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Chris to provide content for long term due 2009-04-15
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Ken to summarize approach to Multi Channel [recorded
    in [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([22]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/04/01 16:38:09 $

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:40 UTC