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

Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Anne Washington <washingtona@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:59:58 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>
cc: Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>, Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>, washingtona@acm.org
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0905221702460.240@AWASHINGTON.crsdomain.loc.gov>
Are we making standards or recommending standards or suggesting ways to 
implement standards? What is our product? Daniel, Adam, Sharron, and Owen 
bring up some interesting points.

Making a W3C standard is an arduous process and outside the scope of an 
W3C IG Interest Group.

By recommending standards, I mean suggesting which existing standards 
would best fit a particular situation. A formal W3C recommendation is only 
within scope for a W3C WG(Working Group) which is possible to charter, if 
I understood correctly.  We not only say what standards are out there, but 
provide the recipe for combining the standards into a palatable dish. 
Jose's example of the Mobile Web Best Practices is technically a "W3C 
recommendation" and a best practices document. Its specificity is its 
beauty. If we created a recommendation like that, we'd have to narrow down 
to a very particular topic: such as "Citation Best Practices" or "Data 
Discovery Best Practices".

The third possibility is suggesting ways to implement standards. It would 
be more of an if-then rubric for multiple situations. This is the 
challenge with egovernment. There are a variety of organizational, 
technical and client possibilities. Our howto suggestions would need apply 
to many possible topics and situations.

I am hoping that the next product(s) could go both broad and deep. We 
need a few focused best practice documents (i.e. recommendation) as well 
as something more broad to address the larger egovernment audiences.

Anne Washington


On Wed, 20 May 2009, Daniel Bennett wrote:

> I was thinking that having best practices and having use cases was the most 
> obvious things to do. I think that the "small how-to" project of identifying 
> and exposing OGD is actually a huge, but important project that I encompasses 
> citations and indexing documents (hmmm perhaps schematizing repositories). 
> Citations would be a big win that could help transform access and referencing 
> govt. documents.
>
> Another not-so-small project is to allow for a posting of what various 
> governments are using and the standards they are using or breaking. 
> Legislatures, executive and judicial organizations across the world use 
> different authoring tools that often determine what is published online and 
> how, the success in using standards or being accessible, how the governmental 
> entities index/make searchable/usable the online documents and services, are 
> all datum that we could help be collected. We don't need to even comment on 
> the data collected, just make it reference-able for conversation. And this 
> would help governments find out what software is available, especially if the 
> software was developed internally and could be made available. In the United 
> States alone there are thousands of governments (federal, state, municipal) 
> using different standards and tools with different results, but no place to 
> post and/or search for what they are all doing.
>
> Daniel
>
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 23:02:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 May 2009 23:02:29 GMT