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

Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:00:05 +0200
Cc: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E501F2BB-88DC-4179-82A5-88F2AD361410@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
El 20/05/2009, a las 16:10, Owen Ambur escribió:
> While I wouldn't exactly call it a "small" document, I agree that  
> the Web
> Accessibility Initiative's (WAI) Accessible Rich Internet Applications
> (ARIA) best practices are a good example of the kind of deliverable  
> the eGov
> IG could produce that might actually be useful to stakeholders who are
> capable of using it.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#accessiblewidget

Good example. I'm not sure we need to go down to code, but would love  
us to produce some of those "recipes" to help me go from Point A to  
Point B in a OGD project.


> I also agree that a good topic of focus for the eGov IG would be open
> government data (OGD), such as:
>
> a) how agencies can make their data more readily discoverable and  
> usable,
> and
>
> b) in turn, how stakeholders (including intermediary service  
> providers) can
> measure and assess the degrees to which agencies have done so  
> (recognizing
> that perfection is not the goal and progress generally occurs in  
> many small
> steps).
>
> In the U.S. federal government, the Federal Enterprise Architecture  
> (FEA)
> Data Reference Model (DRM) was supposed to serve that function.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Enterprise_Architecture#Data_Reference_
> Model_.28DRM.29  However, since agency DRM's themselves are not  
> readily
> discoverable and usable, the FEA DRM as currently being "practiced"  
> cannot
> possibly serve the function for which it was intended, at least not  
> for
> external stakeholders (e.g., citizens).
>
> The draft XSD for the DRM, which would have made the DRM data itself  
> "open"
> but was not finalized and implemented, is available at
> http://xml.gov/draft/drm20060105.xsd
>
> Other ways of viewing this potential initiative for the eGov IG are  
> as:
>
> 1) an internationalized set of best practices for implementing  
> President
> Obama's directive on transparency and open government, which is  
> available in
> StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/DTOG.xml, and
>
> 2) providing practical proposals for prospective implementation in  
> services
> like http://data.gov/

I like this.

> Of course, too, I believe it would be good to explicitly identify our
> stakeholders -- both performers (who are volunteering to do the  
> work) as
> well as prospective beneficiaries, whom we should try to engage in  
> providing
> feedback as well as eventually *using* our deliverable(s).

+1

-- Jose


>  Ideally, we
> would identify our stakeholders (together with our goals and  
> objectives) in
> a readily shareable format like StratML and, thus, practice what we  
> preach
> while demonstrating leadership by example.
>
> Owen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:50 AM
> To: Sharron Rush
> Cc: eGov IG
> Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process
>
>> ...
>>> + 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 Wednesday, 27 May 2009 11:00:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 11:00:55 GMT