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

Re: Wiki edits on data.gov.*

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:15:01 +0200
Cc: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <544639A9-E8E1-48E4-A96F-719D34E99CDC@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Sorry for lateness in responding.
I've reviewed the thread and added all the comments to the wiki. I  
hope I did not miss any.
I expect to add an agenda item to briefly talk about this memo on the  
group call on Wed.

I think we might need a leading editor, probably coming from ETF to  
work in parallel of the ongoing authorship so we could have a latest  
version with most recent agreement integrated somehow. Maybe not easy  
to do but could be very useful.

-- Jose


El 29/06/2009, a las 16:48, Owen Ambur escribió:
> It seems to me that it would be good to provide links to working  
> prototypes
> and applications that not only demonstrate what we are talking about  
> in the
> data.gov.* memo but also enable users to *do it* with their own data.
>
> I don't think it will be sufficient merely to suggest that readers  
> join the
> eGov IG.  While it is fine to invite them to contact us for help, it  
> would
> be better to point them directly to tools they can use to do what we  
> are
> suggesting.  Presumably, other W3C groups as well as the purveyors  
> of such
> tools might be more than willing to help us provide such links.
>
> Owen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Oscar Azanon
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:19 AM
> To: 'eGov IG'
> Subject: RE: Wiki edits on data.gov.*
>
> Hi all,
>
> I find this data.gov.* memo specially interesting and would like to  
> see
> (contribute to see) more on this area coming out from this group.  
> I'd like
> to add some comments:
>
> 1.- I agree with Rinke when he states that
>
> "I would suggest to emphasize RDFa as the preferred way of embedding
> (meta)data in existing XHTML".
>
> So IMHO RFDa is better suited for these scenarios (there are of course
> others where JSON could be a better option, but in general I'd stick  
> to
> RDFa).
>
> 2.- In the 'Choosing formats for putting data on the Web'  
> paragraph:  adding
> an example (the one sent by John about UK's civil service could do  
> the job
> well - at [1]) would help people to see how easy embedding some  
> extra markup
> on existing XHTML pages could be.
>
> 3.- There has been a very interesting discussion about licensing of  
> open
> government data in the list, should we add a small paragraph on this  
> topic?
> Could we state that, whenever content is published in RDFa, it is  
> possible
> to include the license along with the data as well ([2])?
>
> 	Why? This has an important benefit: if I'm using data retrieved from
> a RDFa datasource in my application, I could potentially detect  
> changes in
> licenses / validate automatically I'm ok with the licenses of the  
> data I'm
> using.
>
> 4.- We should also put more stress on the idea that publishers /  
> governments
> may not know beforehand who / why will use the data - and that is  
> precisely
> where the value lies. People may (will probably!) use the data you  
> provide
> in ways you can't foresee / imagine. Just do it, go put it online!
>
> 5.- Search engines are working to add increasing support for RDFa,  
> should we
> add this point as well? It's not quite as good as having your own  
> SPARQL
> endpoint but it could help  (?)
>
> Regards,
>
> ocr
>
> [1]  http://webbackplane.com/files/civil-service-vacancy-source.jpg
> [2]  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ] En
> nombre de Rinke Hoekstra
> Enviado el: lunes, 29 de junio de 2009 13:13
> Para: Jose M. Alonso
> CC: Hugh Barnes; eGov IG; Rachel Flagg
> Asunto: Re: Wiki edits on data.gov.*
>
> I'm sorry, here's another comment:
>
> "@@criteria for prioritising: e.g. survey potential consumers, start
> with the most ready data@@ "
>
> I feel that the threshold for publishing data should be as low as
> possible, and therefore feel more for the gist of "@@as much
> structured information as possible!@@" in the line above than for the
> prioritization.
>
> If anything demonstrates the success of the current linked open data
> cloud it is that data providers need not think in advance of scenarios
> for their data use, but that the true innovation lies in the
> serendipitous combination of data from multiple, sometimes widely
> varying sources.
>
> "open your data" therefore really means open *all* your data. So, yes,
> starting with the most ready data is good advice, but surveying
> consumers is not (necessarily). Secondly, perhaps the document should
> make clear that opening data does not require revolution; but can also
> be an evolutionary process whereby new initiatives to publish
> information on the web take the open data approach into account.
>
> (By the way, I think this document is an excellent and much needed
> initiative)
>
> -Rinke
>
>
> On 29 jun 2009, at 12:22, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>
>> El 22/06/2009, a las 7:10, Hugh Barnes escribió:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I've made some edits and scribbled a few notes on the data.gov.*
>>> memo Jose started.[1]
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to take a step back and think about this structurally.
>>> What follows is some disjoint thoughts.
>>>
>>> I think it will need to drill down to implementation specifics,
>>> though we can probably hide the details behind hyperlinks if that
>>> gets in the way of content flow.
>>
>> Although this is interesting, I wouldn't add the details in that
>> document. Those would be very likely the "Design Patterns for Open
>> Government Data" we mentioned a couple times before.
>>
>> I don't think we could hide them behind hyperlinks yet since it will
>> take us a while to get them done.
>>
>>
>>> The sections I see at the moment are:
>>> * make the case for doing it, and doing it properly - lots of
>>> explanations and examples of network effects and so on
>>> * what to publish
>>> * exploration of formats etc (how)
>>>
>>> We could also cover each principle, followed immmediately by
>>> implementation advice.
>>
>> We probably need to think agin in terms of target audience. For me,
>> that document is not intended for implementors.
>>
>> I very much hope the ETF could come up soon with a "card" or
>> "template", as Rachel mentioned, that would need to be filled before
>> starting docs, stating intended audience among other things.
>>
>>
>>> Knowing the difficulty many agencies have in adapting, the whole
>>> document should accept that interim and partial steps will be more
>>> likely to be followed, but also plot the roadmap from there to the
>>> ideal state. It should contain clear steps for different types of
>>> data and organisational capabilities. Linking to the planned "OGD
>>> patterns" resources might address this.
>>
>> Agree!
>>
>>
>>> Lots of ways to cut this document. Would like to hear feedback on
>>> its current state and some of the ideas presented above.
>>
>> Yup... I hope others will send comments, too.
>> I know ETF plans to take on Charter and White Paper as agreed with
>> Chairs but hope more people from IG comment on the content and ETF
>> could add this one to the list of deliverables soon.
>>
>> I think we should also set a deadline for comments for this document
>> and upcoming ones so ETF could take on those consistently after
>> deadlines.
>>
>> -- Jose
>>
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Hugh Barnes
>>> Resource Discovery Officer
>>> Disability Services Queensland / Department of Communities
>>> +61 7 324-74533
>>>
>>> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/index.php?title=Data-gov-memo&oldid=1404
>
>>> (archive permalink)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Queensland celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2009. Check out
>>> what's on today at www.q150.qld.gov.au."
>>>
>>> ********************************* DISCLAIMER
>>> *********************************
>>> The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
>>> (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
>>> privileged.  It is intended only for the use of the person or
>>> entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the addressee any
>>> form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any
>>> action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is
>>> unauthorised.  Opinions contained in the message(s) do not
>>> necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and
>>> its authorities.  If you received this communication in error,
>>> please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
>>> computer system network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> Drs Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Leibniz Center for Law      |  AI Department
> Faculty of Law              |  Faculty of Sciences
> Universiteit van Amsterdam  |  Vrije Universiteit
> Kloveniersburgwal 48        |  De Boelelaan 1081a
> 1012 CX  Amsterdam          |  1081 HV Amsterdam
> +31-(0)20-5253499           |  +31-(0)20-5987752
> hoekstra@uva.nl             |  hoekstra@few.vu.nl
>
> Homepage: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.92/2203 - Release Date:  
> 06/26/09
> 05:53:00
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 18:15:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 July 2009 18:15:53 GMT