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

[minutes] eGov IG call, 29 April 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:03:13 +0200
Message-Id: <44425869-CC6D-4252-B8F9-A153288DD096@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Available at: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes

and as text below. As usual, comments by first in my (CET) Friday  
morning.

Several issues closed, more to be closed asap. Several new actions.

More detailed info about the path to publication will follow.

Please, remember there is a Group call next Wed, May, 6th at 13:00Z.

-- Jose

--------
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

29 Apr 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-irc

Attendees

    Present
           jake, sharron, josema, owen, daniel, suzanne, dave, ken, john

    Regrets
           oscar

    Chair
           john, kevin

    Scribe
           josema

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]update on activities
          2. [5]review of open issues (and actions)
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <trackbot> Date: 29 April 2009

    <kevin> Good Morning all

    <scribe> scribe: josema

update on activities

    all, see: [7]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open]

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

    kevin: met BSA, government reps from some vendors, at meeting at The
    White House
    ... good discussion, interest in our work, BSA submitted comments
    already
    ... Beth Noveck asked people in the room if they were participating
    in this W3C work
    ... heard it was received as they should work with us
    ... also Bev keeping us in the forefront
    ... I also participated in TWB/OASIS workshop on April, 17th
    ... people from several countries, some african countries
    ... all discussions about standards referring to W3C work

    suzanne: great news, I appreciate hearing that

review of open issues (and actions)

    issue list: [8]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

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

    ISSUE-1

    @@Semantic agreement in advance facilitates all exchanging parties
    to have a common understanding of the meaning of the data exchanged
    ISSUE-1@@

    [comments in @@ come from editor's draft]

    <davemc> Owen +1

    owen: as much agreement in advance as possible is good
    ... [scribe missed comment]

    Daniel: I don't think this is a requirement but a best practice

    <kevin> Daniel, I agree it is a best practice

    john: I like the wording, can live with that

    <Owen> From my perspective, the key point is to publish the names
    and plain-language definitions of each element regardless of how
    many people may or may not agree.

    RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-1

    [Chairs: no need to resolve more, directly close them when agreement
    reached]

    trackbot, close ISSUE-2

    <trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition closed

    trackbot, close ISSUE-1

    <trackbot> ISSUE-1 is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in
    advance? closed

    trackbot, open ISSUE-2

    <trackbot> Sorry, josema, I don't understand 'trackbot, open
    ISSUE-2'. Please refer to [9]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
    for help

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

    ISSUE-2

    [john tries to cut himself in two...]

    <john> lol

    <davemc> agreed. let's not be too academically perfect.

    [suzanne suggests to review authoritative references and highlight
    the common thing]

    [see some at:
    [10]http://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/2009-02-28_TCamp_Data_Standards
    .pdf]

      [10] http://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/2009-02-28_TCamp_Data_Standards.pdf

    <davemc> a definitive reference would be it's own working group

    suzanne: if there's no formal and definitive definition we should
    point to what is available
    ... but get to just one could take us a lot of time

    <john> agree with 7 / 8 of those listed

    <john> no 8 is troublesome

    john: be careful not to enter the OSS vs. proprietary software
    discussion

    <davemc> also be careful to avoid the "free software" versus "open
    source" lexicon

    john: we should point to what people mean as OGD, not endorse any

    suzanne: make situation awareness

    dave: could even be a subgroup in the new charter

    <scribe> ACTION: kevin to deal with ISSUE-2 along this line
    [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Deal with ISSUE-2 along this line [on
    Kevin Novak - due 2009-05-06].

    ISSUE-2: see ACTION-55

    <trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition notes added

    <Owen> It is not necessary to get into the debate over open source
    versus proprietary software in order to outline the attributes of
    open *data*.

    ISSUE-3

    <davemc> I vote to close this...

    kevin: propose to leave it as is and close it

    suzanne: agree
    ... it could be a good thing to add to an appendix or glossary

    [also on ISSUE-26 on having a glossary]

    suzanne: should we add a glossary?

    jose: I'd like to if someone takes responsibility

    daniel: +1, maybe using wiki approach

    <scribe> ACTION: Sharron to start glossary related to ISSUE-26
    [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Start glossary related to ISSUE-26
    [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].

    ISSUE-26: see ACTION-56

    <trackbot> ISSUE-26 glossary to be added to the document? notes
    added

    close ISSUE-26

    <trackbot> ISSUE-26 glossary to be added to the document? closed

    ISSUE-2, glossary will hold this

    close ISSUE-2

    <trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition closed

    close ISSUE-3

    <trackbot> ISSUE-3 spelling of eGovernment closed

    <john> he is right

    ISSUE-4

    jose: I would add it

    Daniel: [on issue in US around this and re-selling datasets]
    ... potential issue, don't think we should say governments should do
    this

    john: not say it's desirable but ack it as approach

    owen: US FOIA says gov should maintain data in formats requested ??

    dave: sounds like we are discussing packaging rather than data at
    this point

    <kevin> I agree with John

    <Owen> The E-FOIA amendments are available at
    [13]http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

      [13] http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

    <scribe> ACTION: john to write a paragraph to add this one [recorded
    in [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - john

    <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
    username (eg. jwonderl, jsherida)

    <scribe> ACTION: jsherida to write a paragraph to add this one
    [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Write a paragraph to add this one [on
    John Sheridan - due 2009-05-06].

    ISSUE-4: see ACTION-57

    <trackbot> ISSUE-4 Raw Data or Bulk Data downloads should be added
    to OGD section notes added

    [discussions on approach in EU and US]

    [on how to reference, how this can be or not mandated by govs]

    [this is an issues doc; we should highlight it as an issue[

    ISSUE-5

    owen: should W3C recs be in FEA TRM?

    [nothing heard]

    owen: yes

    daniel: let them be able to reference it, not say they should
    reference it

    owen: it's the technical _reference_ model not the technical
    _mandate_ model

    suzanne: we are writing a doc that have potential to turn into set
    of guidelines
    ... TRM way of reference is one way but what about other countries?

    kevin: we should be broad

    <davemc> Kevin +1 : Broad, but flexible

    kevin: I don't think we'll have a pretty clear view yet

    suzanne: issues can turn into opportunities for future work

    <john> +1

    <davemc> Suzanne +1

    <Owen> It would be good if the "data" contained in "standards" (like
    W3C Recommendations) were readily referenceable in national TRMs.

    [suzanne leaves call]

    ISSUE-5, go ahead with broad but flexible approach

    close ISSUE-19

    <trackbot> ISSUE-19 The mention of human readable format using HTML
    seems unclearly focused closed

    close ISSUE-27

    <trackbot> ISSUE-27 remove negative reference to PDF closed

    dave: fine with replacement text on both

    [reviewing accessibility issues]

    jose: added everything to the doc, fine with me, they are the
    experts

    kevin: anything controversial?

    <john> kevin +1

    sharron: I'm in both groups, nothing controversial, just making a
    better distinction

    close ISSUE-6

    <trackbot> ISSUE-6 open standards to achieve participation and
    engagement closed

    [all fine with accessibility related changes]

    ISSUE-7

    [distinction between sw and data stds?]

    <john> I'm enjoying the discussion

    [level you _need_ to achieve vs. level you _want_ to achieve]

    [on policy need to have higher degree of interop e.g. on geospatial
    data]

    <davemc> John +1

    [we don't need everything to interop with everything from a gov
    perspective]

    close ISSUE-7

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 achieving interoperability should be done through
    standardization closed

    jose: several on adding pointers and examples can be already closed,
    it's being done

    kevin: +1

    john: +1

    <scribe> ACTION: josema to close those ISSUES that have been
    integrated in the doc already [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Close those ISSUES that have been
    integrated in the doc already [on Josť Manuel Alonso - due
    2009-05-06].

    sharron: will the structure of the document change significantly to
    improve narrative ??
    ... I can volunteer to help with that

    ISSUE-10: yes

    <trackbot> ISSUE-10 creation of an executive summary for C-level
    audience notes added

    <scribe> ACTION: kevin to develop exec summary and abstract
    [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Develop exec summary and abstract [on
    Kevin Novak - due 2009-05-06].

    <scribe> ACTION: sharron to help develop exec summary and abstract
    [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Help develop exec summary and
    abstract [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].

    ISSUE-11: add them to glossary, too

    <trackbot> ISSUE-11 abbreviations like API, PSI etc. needs to be
    explained the first time and more tweaks to abbreviations might be
    needed notes added

    [when producing the glossary take into account the abbreviations]

    close ISSUE-11

    <trackbot> ISSUE-11 abbreviations like API, PSI etc. needs to be
    explained the first time and more tweaks to abbreviations might be
    needed closed

    ISSUE-15, ISSUE-17, daniel working on it, will deliver text tomorrow

    ISSUE-17: Daniel, more of a philosofical rather than technical but
    I'll call out

    <trackbot> ISSUE-17 safe to play notes added

    ISSUE-18

    josema: not sure what to do with this one, not easy

    kevin: I think we should be broad and flexible again

    daniel: we should be very careful

    john: it's a hard question

    kevin: should we have a list?

    john: it can be problematic

    josema: +1

    daniel: +1

    ISSUE-18: use Web content from WCAG2.0, referencing from document as
    a whole where needed

    <trackbot> ISSUE-18 should more non W3C standards be added? notes
    added

    <scribe> ACTION: sharron to review document with ISSUE-18 in mind
    [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Review document with ISSUE-18 in mind
    [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].

    ISSUE-18: see ACTION-61

    <trackbot> ISSUE-18 should more non W3C standards be added? notes
    added

    ISSUE-22

    Daniel: we should add something saying that debate and dialogue is
    important and should be added

    sharron: +1

    <scribe> ACTION: daniel to provide replacement text to add ISSUE-22
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Provide replacement text to add
    ISSUE-22 [on Daniel Bennett - due 2009-05-06].

    close ISSUE-25

    <trackbot> ISSUE-25 more good practice around URIs and URLs closed

    <john> great job josema!

    [all review already proposed schedule and agree]

    [ADJOURNED]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daniel to provide replacement text to add ISSUE-22
    [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: john to write a paragraph to add this one [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: josema to close those ISSUES that have been integrated
    in the doc already [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: jsherida to write a paragraph to add this one
    [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: kevin to deal with ISSUE-2 along this line [recorded
    in [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: kevin to develop exec summary and abstract [recorded
    in [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: sharron to help develop exec summary and abstract
    [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: sharron to review document with ISSUE-18 in mind
    [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: Sharron to start glossary related to ISSUE-26
    [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([31]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/04/29 15:55:16 $

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:04:10 GMT