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

Re: Plain Language use case [was RE: Suggestion for Introduction]

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:35:06 +0200
Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <57FF1E1C-B80D-4768-9CCD-2741C4CF8A6A@w3.org>
To: "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
El 20/04/2009, a las 22:07, Owen Ambur escribió:
> Rachel, I reviewed your draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/images/1/15/EGovIG-PlainLanguageUseCase 
> .
> doc  It looks fine to me, but I'd suggest adding small businesses to  
> the
> list of target populations since they are the economic engine of job
> creation and they don't have the time or resources to hire legions of
> lawyers to interpret government jargon.
>
> Since the W3C's technical staff was unable to grant me access to the  
> group
> note, I cannot edit it to include your draft.  However, I trust that  
> Jose,
> Kevin, or John can.

I think we should try not to change the draft unless agreed by the  
Group, hence why we are compiling the ISSUES that should be discussed  
and agreed by us as a Group before making the changes. Said that,


> BTW, as far as I know, the W3C has not published an XML schema (XSD)  
> for its
> Group Notes.  If they have, any XML-enabled editor could be used to  
> draft
> and edit them, including the 2007 edition of MS Word.  From my  
> perspective,
> it seems that the W3C suffers from some of the same proprietary  
> maladies as
> those whose shortcomings they aim to alleviate.

The schema and stylesheets are at:
   http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/

Documents are not required to use it but to comply with W3C  
publication rules:
   http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules

Of course, the schema helps you do so and has benefits but I have not  
used it since I found easier in my personal case to edit XHTML  
directly. Many other editors use the schema to edit W3C docs in XML  
and I believe there are even some XML tools that have this as one of  
the available templates.

Besides, I believe the Patent Policy and RF status puts W3C quite far  
from "proprietary maladies."

-- Jose


> Owen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Flagg, Rachel
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:23 PM
> To: 'Sharron Rush'; 'public-egov-ig@w3.org'
> Subject: Plain Language use case [was RE: Suggestion for Introduction]
>
> Sharron,
> Thanks for the reminder.  I've had the plain language draft use case  
> done
> for several weeks... but have finally posted the draft to the wiki -
> comments welcome.  (Owen A. or anyone, would love your help, if you  
> can put
> the doc into xml...I frankly don't have time right now, so just  
> posted a
> word doc.)
>
> Also agree, Sharron, with your suggestion to start the Note off with a
> brief, plain language intro.  The average person usually has a hard  
> time
> understanding "geek speak", so the more clear and simple we can  
> explain what
> we're trying to do, the better.  eGov is all about "the people", so  
> I think
> this needs to be written in language the general public can  
> understand.
>
> Thanks!
> -Rachel
>
> Rachel Flagg
> Web Content Manager
>   and Co-Chair, Federal Web Managers Council
> Government Web Best Practices Team (on detail)
> Office of Citizen Services
> U.S. General Services Administration
> rachel.flagg@hud.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Sharron Rush
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:58 AM
> To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Suggestion for Introduction
>
>
> Hello editors,
>
> In going through the wiki, I find a Pending Use Case around Plain
> Language.  That was the point I tried to make in my first message - I
> think we need to model that.  Rachel, can I support you in that work  
> in
> any way?
>
> But as a start, here is a suggestion for the Introduction.  I am a
> strong advocate for introductory text that simply lays the foundation
> and lets readers know what to expect.  I believe that we may want to
> include one short paragraph (an example is suggested below, but please
> feel free to reject or rewrite) and move all the other explanatory  
> text
> into the Background section.
>
> _Introduction:_
>
> The mission of the e-Government Interest group is to provide a forum  
> and
> leadership around the issue of how to improve access to government
> through better use of the Web and to achieve better government
> transparency using open Web standards.  We have pursued the mission in
> year 1 by setting these goals for the group:
>
> 1.      Explore the benefits and challenges for both citizens and  
> their
> governments of establishing effective, transparent and inclusive two- 
> way
> electronic communication and participatory systems of governing.
>
> 2.      Define the critical links that are needed between standards
> bodies and government entities to help citizens and governments meet  
> the
> challenges and realize the benefits.
>
> 3.      Develop a flexible list of concerns and deliverables to help
> build cooperative relationships that lead to productive next steps.
>
> To meet these goals, the group worked within three Task Forces:  
> Usage of
> Web Standards, Transparency and Participation, and Seamless  
> Integration
> of Data.  The following document describes our findings.
>
>
> ...so, what do you think?  If there is another avenue that you would
> rather I use for suggestions of this kind, please let me know.  And
> thanks for considering!
>
> Best,
> Sharron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 11:35:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 April 2009 11:36:00 GMT