- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:27:53 +0100
- To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-egov-minutes.html
and as text below. They'll be final, as usual, first in my (CET)
Friday morning, so comments by then, please.
-- Jose
-----------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference
18 Feb 2009
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-egov-irc
Attendees
Present
john, josema, daniel, rachel, kevin, owen, chris, joe
Regrets
kjetil, robin, aldo
Chair
john
Scribe
kevin, josema
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Appoint a scribe, agenda adjustments
2. [5]Editor's draft
3. [6]Use Cases, graduation process, which ones?
4. [7]F2F @ AIA (12-13 March 2009)
5. [8]Where and how to position the Group?
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Appoint a scribe, agenda adjustments
john: any volunteers?
daniel:: one more week and I'll do it
<josema> scribe: kevin
Kevin to take on scribing for today
john: agenda adjustment call
[none heard]
Editor's draft
<josema> [10]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note
[10] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note
jose: takes on agenda item 2
... uploaded open government data section
... oscar working on small start version for interoperability
... kevin has front end sections almost finished
... all due next Wednesday so Jose has time to review and place in
w3 formats for publication rules
... plain language target to ensure govts and others understand what
is being communication, references also important
... participation section: pointers to reuse including references
... interesting to review and reuse for that section for the writers
<josema> [11]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/26
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/26
jose: not all sections done for first draft: including multichannel
section
... my expertise only on deliver of content on mobile devices
... publish first draft first week of march in preparation for face
to face meeting
... send whatever you have
... interesting to review and reuse for that section for the writers
... in terms of tone, references, etc.
jose: getting content finished sooner than later to give Jose time
over the weekend next week to review and compile
daniel: will send draft
jose: forgot to say one thing: Kevin will take on final read prior
to publication
... will have one or two days before publication date for review and
adjustments
jose: agree and commited to do so
[kevin talks about other factors that require documentation outside
of technical specifications]
[kevin has used John's content for introductory piece and can build
bridges and synergies with the content types]
john: need to get as much stuff as we can.
[Chris is writing persistent URL piece with Anne]
<josema> deadline: 25 Feb!!
jose: I have to go through a reviewing and publication process that
has some complexity
john: editor's draft agenda item complete
Use Cases, graduation process, which ones?
john:how we graduate use cases, what are our conclusions on what
process is going to look like
daniel: what does it mean to graduate
jose: roughly, compiling use cases to develop group notes, draft
ideas and discuss use cases,
... topics in use cases, through mailing list, some use cases
getting interesting
... may want to reference use cases from our doc and make references
in other documents
... some documents are normative and should be persistent all times
... hence move beyond wiki to ensure it is permanently available
... put somewhere else in a more stable location
... dont need anything special from a functionality perspective
<josema>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/UseCases/doc/how-does-it-work
[12] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/UseCases/doc/how-does-it-work
jose: process I have been working on now posted to IRC
... asks some rdfa for pages
... builds index, etc, etc,
... how does RDFa or semantic technology, not complex to use
... group should review cases more before they are moved to
graduated status
... I blieve we (as other Groups before) have two different types of
cases:
... describing specific projects and others about more generic
problem that needs to be solved
... some cases are already integrated in some other given sense
... built on use case and should we graduate: Open government?
... should not be complex process...
joe: what is the ulimate goal of group? egov activities?
john: mediates role to address practical problems using W3C
specifications
... including public policy item, ie services for children, renew
taxes
... how is public money being spent
... increasingly using the web
... two different worlds: technology and public policy items
... intermediary between both
... need to have coherent thoughts addressing public policy
objectives with the outputs of the group related to techncl
... how they are specifically using W3C specifications
kevin: govt audience and technology audience
... better understand problems, issues, and challenges
joe: goes along with work he is trying to do
... use case should use government data
... retool and s...how demonstration of approach
kevin: we need to show people how practical an standard can be
... difficult for a policy person how to relate this to his needs
daniel: a big piece of W3C visibility within gov is Accessibility
... is a major set of standards that can be brought out to govts and
public
kevin: I believe on Accessibility and I promote it much
... but the way W3C work is very good for technical people
... but difficult to trumpet that within an organization to other
profiles
chris: agree
daniel: make sure this is captured in stratml doc of the Group
john: we have a criteria for use cases to back up that conversation
... which is we want use cases to capture real world experience and
not abstract
... what does it mean" those use cases that talk about practical
items and have author address
kevin: group to go through use cases, aggregate knowledge in there
before graduating
daniel: how do we capture interest/readership in the use cases?
joe: stratml good case of applicability
daniel: how should group members have responsiblity
john: presumably one of the things we need is to get use cases
graduate prior to face to face
... and paper publication so that they can be cited and referenced
in the paper
... we will always want to be collecting and discussing use cases
<josema> +1 to ongoing collection
john: a lot we don't know about out there,
... answer to question: give same period of time to look at use
cases
... to look through and add practical examples etc before graduating
... add what we have to add
daniel:will we have time at the F2F to go through each of the use
cases?
kevin:yes, we should build that into the agenda
john: we haven't really finished defining criteria for graduating
use cases
daniel: opportunity of face to face should be to define
joe: agree
kevin:agree
daniel:agree
jose: question is that, but I already know the answer: do you expect
use cases to be linked to first public working draft
kevin: goal to finalize use cases at face to face to ready for
publication
john: done with graduating use cases
... move on to face to face
F2F @ AIA (12-13 March 2009)
john: signing up and level of interest
jose: we have last I looked 24 people registered, six people via
remote
... less than capacity
daniel:I will add in Julie Germany of IPDI/GWU
kevin: can hold up to 60, more if needed
... Chairs talked to Karen, Ian (W3C) considering a PR next week
... I'll meet with Sunlight later today
... looking forward to other opps
daniel: are we looking more for folks outside or inside gov?
kevin: both, maybe more from inside as it's developing so far
... in my previous position I got to know their work
... very active and useful
chris:what is the current representation?
daniel: looks like about half
...would go after those responsible for web content and formats.
kevin: also jose reminded me of Web Managers Roundtable I'm hosting
the day before the meeting
... lady in charge will help me outreach
... considering Bev Godwin, also @@
daniel: I will check into congress
joe: I personally emailed the CTO of GPO, so he knows about it
chris: I meet this week with CIOC and will tell them, too
john: how to structure the meeting, in terms of what we need to
achieve
... we had some discussion at the Chairs call last week and by email
... what are people's views to have high energy level
... want interaction, barcamp style?
<chris> Have to leave the call. Thanks all.
kevin: participation last time when W3C organized the workshop was
great
... it was a productive dialogue
... need to be really careful to set expectations in the right way
... have good conversation
[rachel leaves the call]
[how to make governments release more data, and why, and how]
[balance between people that need to release the data and the ones
that will consume them]
joe: put the data out there is fine, but how and in what format?
... if the Group could answer this question, it would be helpful for
governments
... on accessibility: creating tables to relate info to other
agencies
... took data and put things on the web
... paper solution was paper solution that now needs to evolve to
new interoperability standard
<Zakim> josema, you wanted to talk about two faces of transparency
and to talk about W3C tech stack vs. government needs
[jose on two faces of transparency and W3C stack vs. government
needs]
[owen back on call]
john: pull back to how we cope with issues
... half and idea, and how do we actually try to get these issues
into the face to face
... split one day for provocation and one about reflection
kevin: helps to define year two of group work
... response and solution approach
... provocation and reflection for structure
[we all like that concept]
john: throw out challenges etc in first day
... provoke and discuss issues and turn them into solutions, what do
we need to do, do we agree?
... what do we need to do to solve the problem issue, etc
... promote exploration
kevin: if we go through all the issues and challenges alone in one
day, can have negative energy
... but if use half day for that, half for reflections, could be
good
... then come back next day to build on it
... turn the next day into the solutions and path forward leading to
next year work plan
... and improving current work and direction
john: be flexible,
joe: not have owners be reflectors
... much more positive perspective
owen: remember that the FEA reference models are being updated
... many W3C stds not there, one objective could be to incorporate
them
... just in brainstorming mode, now
[what is the problem those models are trying to address, food for
thought]
john and Kevin: use every tool in tool box that transends technical
tools and solutions but also public policy
Joe: talk about purpose
... accessibility
<josema> ACTION: josema to send an email to Group to tell them about
provocation/reflection and fill in the wiki page [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-egov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Send an email to Group to tell them
about provocation/reflection and fill in the wiki page [on José
Manuel Alonso - due 2009-02-25].
Where and how to position the Group?
[support from Comm/Karen]
[ADJOURNED]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: josema to send an email to Group to tell them about
provocation/reflection and fill in the wiki page [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-egov-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.133
([16]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/02/18 19:18:15 $
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:28:42 UTC