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 18:37:05 +0200
Cc: "Trond Arne Undheim" <trond-arne.undheim@oracle.com>, "eGov IG" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <06DA14AB-F6CA-4EDB-BA59-4D12F6786494@w3.org>
To: Todd Vincent <todd.vincent@xmllegal.org>
Attaching to ISSUE-7
-- Jose

El 06/03/2009, a las 16:17, Todd Vincent escribió:

> This is my first post to the list.  I have been reading your posts  
> with interest.  Thanks to everyone for their work.
> While Trond makes a number of excellent points, I would like to add  
> to one of the points that he makes:
> <Trond>
> a. you answer the question: "how can interoperability be achieved"  
> without clearly stating that the best way to achieve  
> interoperability is through standardization.
> </Trond>
> In my experience, "interoperability" and "standardization" are not  
> synonymous.  While it is true that standardization can help to  
> achieve interoperability, it is equally true that poor or complex  
> standards can be barriers to interoperability.
> Government employees often rely on standards groups or other  
> government agencies to bless standards, without having a deep  
> knowledge of the adopted standards or associated technologies.  This  
> makes government procurement easier (and, of course, you cannot get  
> fired for adopting the "industry standard").
> The problem is that if/when poor or complex standards are adopted by  
> government, the effect is the opposite of high-level goals.  That  
> is, instead of easier and cheaper access to government information,  
> government information becomes more expensive and more difficult to  
> access.
> Sadly, there are people both in the public and private sector that  
> benefit from expensive, more difficult-to-access government  
> information.  Hence, in my view, the interoperability problem is not  
> equivalent to , or as simple as, "standardization."  If you lead  
> government to believe that access to information is solved by  
> standardization, you may find you that you do not get what you are  
> after.
> Thanks,
> Todd
> ===========================
> Winchel "Todd" Vincent III
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Trond Arne Undheim
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:07 AM
> To: Jose M. Alonso
> Cc: eGov IG
> Subject: Re: Group Note FPWD is done
> 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
> <image001.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 16:38:01 UTC

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