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

RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 14:33:27 -0400
To: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <000701c9dbd4$f712bd80$e5383880$@Ambur@verizon.net>
On the issue of which standards .gov agencies are using and not using, for
the U.S. federal Executive Branch agencies the annual A-119/NTTAA reports
are supposed to provide such data, via
http://standards.gov/standards_gov/index.cfm  However, (why are we not
surprised) that data is not in readily shareable, reusable format.  See the
annual reports at
https://standards.gov/NTTAA/agency/index.cfm?fuseaction=NTTAAReports.main 

Automating the A-119/NTTAA reporting process on a real-time basis is among
the proposed enhancements to the ET.gov site/process for which resources
have been lacking.  See desirable enhancements 6.4 and 7 toward the bottom
of the "page" at http://et.gov/history/enhancementrequirements.htm 

Of course, too, part of the problem is that the metadata about standards
themselves is not in readily referenceable format, which is the part of the
problem I wish the eGov IG could help to resolve.

Owen Ambur
Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP  
Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
Member, AIIM iECM Committee 
Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
Communications/Membership Director, FIRM Board  
Former Project Manager, ET.gov 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Daniel Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Jose M. Alonso
Cc: Sharron Rush; eGov IG
Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

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


Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> ...
>>>  + a set of small docs with guidance?
>>>   (could be recs or not)
>>
>> I am not sure what these "small docs" would do that would not be 
>> included in BP and the rewritten Note, but am open to suggestion. Are 
>> you thinking of technical documents that would be more of a how-to?
>> a series of case studies of particularly effective practices?
>
> I was thinking of small how-to like things, e.g. techniques to 
> identify and expose OGD, but also identification of scenarios to do 
> so. More how-to than case studies.
>
>>  The suite of ARIA documents could be a model, I suppose.
>
> Maybe... I like this how-to piece:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#accessiblewidget
>
>>  This one requires more consideration and could be decided after 
>> being chartered, is that not so?  or do we need to state our entire 
>> scope of work at the time of charter?
>
> As specific as possible is always welcome, but we can definitely leave 
> some room as we did first time. More on charters:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#WGCharter
>
>
>>>  + a second version of the Note?
>>>   (no need to be a rec, as you know)
>>
>> Yes, the Note must be rewritten for coherence, narrative flow, 
>> conclusions, etc.
>
> Heard several saying this. I don't have an opinion yet besides that 
> this should be done if there are group members willing to take on this 
> task.
>
>
>>> In summary: going normative is "stronger" but has more implications:
>>> patent policy matters, strongest coordination with other groups, 
>>> more process-related stuff to deal with...
>>
>> If we are saying that we will produce normative standards and expect 
>> eGov practitioners around the world to begin to claim "conformance"
>> to these standards,  that is a mighty undertaking.  Think of the 
>> arduous processes around WCAG2 and HTML5.  Also, eGov is a bit less 
>> easily defined because of cultural influences, history, forms of 
>> government etc.  I would advise that we not commit to normative 
>> output at this time, but as previously stated, happy to hear another 
>> point of view.
>
> Ok, thanks. I think I'm more of a non-normative opinion so far.
>
>
>> Please let me know if this is the type of input needed and/or if I 
>> have overlooked any questions.
>
> Very much so, thanks!
> If you have something more specific in mind about the content we 
> should produce, please share it, too.
>
> Cheers,
> Jose.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Sharron
>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GAGeneral
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter
>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary
>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/AboutW3CSlides/images/groupProcess.png
>>> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#Reports
>>> [7] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter
>>> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
>>> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
>
>
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 18:34:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 May 2009 18:34:12 GMT