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

Re: Group Note FPWD is done

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:57:42 +0200
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2E05723-2D83-4BBA-BE48-4E8B6F0143EE@w3.org>
To: Trond Arne Undheim <trond-arne.undheim@oracle.com>

Thanks much for your comments. I'm splitting your message in one per  
comment to have them properly attached the the tracker issues. You'll  
see them coming right after this one.

Side note for those reading, please send one comment/issue per email  
to help us track, review and respond.


ps: still a one hand typist ;(

El 06/03/2009, a las 15:07, Trond Arne Undheim escribió:
> Dear Jose et. al,
> Congratulations on a strong document that clarifies many important  
> issues.
> I have a few suggestions;
> 1) In the Background section, you say: "Governments are increasingly  
> finding value in Web standards created at W3C, these standards  
> currently enjoy broad use in eGovernment and some have been named in  
> laws and put into practice in a variety of countries."
> while this is true, it remains the case that in Europe, one cannot  
> readily reference fora/consortia standards and specifications  
> neither in policy nor in legislation because of the EU legislative  
> framework, specifically Directive 98/34 and CD 87/95.
> I feel our report should reflect that this while a unified IT  
> industry has wanted a reform for several years now, and the fact  
> that such a reform was hinted at in an informal Way Forward document  
> by the European Commission last year, nothing has happened yet, and  
> the reform must wait until the next Commission.
> Meanwhile, it remains true, as our report says, that web standards  
> are used and to some extent referenced in government documents. This  
> shows the enormous importance of such standards.
> 2) In http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/ 
> note#pe.issues.interop you say: "can it be improved by  
> technologies...". Well, the improvement would only happen if these  
> were open standards development efforts happening in transparent  
> fora/consortia and/or standards organizations. Why do you call  
> OpenID a "technology"? This is confusing.
> 3) In http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note#interop
> a. you answer the question: "how can interoperability be achieved"  
> without clearly stating that the best way to achieve  
> interoperability is through standardization.
> b. you mention GIFs, and could also mention the large UN work on the  
> topic http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif
> c. You might consider refering to CAMSS which is the emerging  
> approach to the issue in Europe, i.e, a set of principles regarding  
> standards that in effect constitute an assessment methodology. You  
> might say, it is the logical next step from a GIF which is simply a  
> passive document that needs constant updating. see my blog entry on  
> CAMSS for more details.
> d. About Open Standards, you say "It is of paramount importance to  
> use open standards where available – for instance, use the X.509  
> technology stack when digital certificates are required.". I would  
> suggest to refer to something more generic than a standard few  
> government officials might have heard of. A good summary of the  
> characteristics of open standards was given by
> The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law  
> School's Roadmap for Open Ecosystems, which included government  
> experts, came up with the following1:
> “This ROADMAP considers a standard to be open when it complies with  
> all these elements:
> · Cannot be controlled by any single person or entity with any  
> vested interests;
> · Evolution and management in a transparent process open to all  
> interested parties;
> · Platform independent, vendor neutral and usable for multiple  
> implementations;
> · Openly published (including availability of specifications and  
> supporting material);
> · Available royalty free or at minimal cost, with other restrictions  
> (such as field of use and defensive suspension) offered on  
> reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; and
> · Approved through due process by rough consensus among participants.”
> 1Roadmap for Open Ecosystems, see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/
> In addition, it is essential that open standards be compatible with  
> a variety of licensing and development models, including open source.
> I also attach the two recent policy briefs from the Openforum Europe  
> Standards Special Interest Group (they can also be found on the web  
> at http://www.openforumeurope.org/initiatives/sigs-1/standards-sig/).
> e. You say "What Are the Main Issues and Limitations?". I would  
> suggest to take out the word "limitations". Indeed open standards  
> are enablers. Indeed, what you are talking about is components of  
> interoperability.
> 	• I would suggest to add an executive summary written for  
> journalists, C-level executives in public and private sectors, and  
> non-experts. It would greatly enhance the impact of the document and  
> help all who want to quickly paraphrase its content.
> 	• I think we have some work to do regarding abbreviations. API, PSI  
> etc. needs to be esplained the first time and the abbreviation put  
> in parenthesis. Sometimes that is not enough either, and the full  
> term is better used throughout to avoid confusion.
> 	• The way you use links is not conducive to easy comprehension. Why  
> are they doubled up?
> 	• I feel the abstract is quite weak. If we cannot deliver stronger  
> conclusions, we should re-work the document and re-think.
> 	• Could we include a few more examples? I would suggest at least  
> pointing to a few governments who are doing certain aspects quite  
> well, such as the Dutch government on open standards, link to a few  
> GIFs, etc.
> Finally, I agree that the spelling should be "e-government", not  
> "eGov" or "eGovernment".
> Trond
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Trond Arne Undheim | Director Standards Strategy and Policy EMEA
> Phone: +44.207.816.7952 | Mobile: +44.782.730.8841
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> One South Place | London | EC2M 2RB | United Kingdom
> ORACLE Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England &  
> Wales | Company Reg. No. 1782505 | Reg. office: Oracle Parkway,  
> Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA
> Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> All,
>> It has been a very intense weekend. Some of us, namely Kevin, John  
>> and me have been working until the very last minute on developing  
>> the final draft. We have worked on the document until yesterday  
>> night, then called it done.
>> Final document is a snapshot of the current Editor's Draft [1] and  
>> we are requesting publication on March 10; comments will be  
>> welcomed until April 26.
>> Thanks John, Oscar, Daniel and Owen for providing content for the  
>> document. Very special thanks to Kevin for bearing with me over the  
>> last couple days and a great editorial work.
>> I think the document is quite solid but no doubt that with the help  
>> of others it could be greatly improved, so do not hesitate to send  
>> comments or offering authoring help.
>> Cheers,
>> Jose.
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note
>> -- 
>> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
>> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 14:58:41 UTC

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