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

[minutes] eGov IG Call, 2 Sep 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:30:46 +0200
Message-Id: <BC27A65F-2231-4E88-9F16-B936B18D46B5@w3.org>
To: eGovIG IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Minutes at:

  http://www.w3.org/2009/09/02-egov-minutes

and also as text below.

Thanks Sharron for scribing.

Please, note that ACTIONs where not properly recorded by tracker  
somehow but I've created all of them in the system manually.

As a reminder, a content-complete version of the memo by ETF is  
expected by Friday and a properly formatted final working draft by  
Monday at latest. This should allow us to publish on Tuesday.

Next meeting: Sep 16, 13:00Z
Next scribe: Daniel


-- Jose


---------------------------------

      [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - MINUTES -

                       eGovernment Interest Group

02 Sep 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Sep/0000

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/02-egov-irc

Attendees

    Present
           John, Kevin, Jose, Rachel, Adam, Hugh, Daniel, Owen, Sharron,
           Sandro, Sylvia, Vagner, Rinke, Brand, George

    Regrets
    Chair
           John

    Scribe
           Sharron

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda adjustments and next meetings
          2. [6]Charter sent to AC
          3. [7]Data.gov.* memo
          4. [8]Face to Face 3
          5. [9]What's going on/coming up
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Agenda adjustments and next meetings

    John: Is everyone happy with the agenda today?

    All: Yes

Charter sent to AC

    John: The proposed Charter was sent to the Advisory Committee at W3C

    John: Josema, can you give an update?

    Jose: According to W3C process, charter has been submitted to
    Advisory Committee and must remain with them 4 weeks. It was delayed
    because of my departure, etc. It has been submitted and they have
    until the 28th of September to review and approve it.
    ... member representatives can make comments, each representative
    decides who can see comments submitted. For those of you who work
    for W3C member orgs, ask your AC rep to review and support it. The
    more reviewers who have comments the better.
    ... the mailing list is on public announcements and individuals can
    also submit comments.
    ... before the charter went to the AC there were some changes. I
    made the changed version available a couple of days ago.

    <josema>
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Aug/0027

      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Aug/0027

    Jose: not many changes, removal of duplicate content, etc. Changed
    length of charter from 2 years to 1. Keeping fingers crossed to have
    as many good reviews as possible

    John: For those of us who are AC reps, should we be actively
    supporting the charter? Is that worthwhile?

    ACTION: John - Support and reach out to other AC reps to encourage
    support of eGov Charter

    Jose: Yes, especially since you can decide to keep comments within
    small group or make public.

Data.gov.* memo

    John: Can you speak to this Daniel?

    Daniel: I received some comments leading to some changes. Owen's
    suggestions have not yet been incorporated, should be in the
    bibliography, which will be addressed by the ETF. I welcome people
    from the group to read through and comment.

    John: What issues were raised?

    Daniel: Clarity at the start about what the memo is about.
    ... various suggestions for clean up to language, need for explicit
    references, examples.

    John: No substantial differences of view?

    Daniel: Not that I saw. I incorporated some of the comments from the
    last call.

    <hughb> I have been away a few weeks - wondering why it moved to
    Google Docs (off wiki)

    Daniel: changed the title of the section

    Rachel: For the purposes of the ETF I want to make sure that all
    comments that came in over the list have been incorporated and our
    job will be specifically to clear up language.

    Daniel: There were requests for examples and some bibliography
    issues

    Rachel: So is it ready for us to take over? Is Friday the deadline
    for this?

    Daniel: Before September 9th

    Rachel: I'll shoot for getting it in by Friday.

    ACTION: Rachel - Within ETF, draft next version of dat.gov.* memo,
    focusing on content

    <Zakim> josema, you wanted to talk about deadlines, working draft,
    formatting

    Daniel: I tried to make it as readable as possible.

    Jose: There is a question of how to publish the memo, we wanted to
    publish before next week's summit. To publicize our work, we have
    been talking to W3C about that. Asking about the best way to publish
    this memo.
    ... given that many of us are still learning about how to do
    publication in w3c framework, they have suggested that we publish as
    a Working Draft

    <hughb> I expect it would be quite tweakable

    Jose: This memo then should be in the same format as the previous WD
    we published.
    ... that means it must be in w3c format, etc

    Rachel: So we should get it done quickly?

    Jose: It is a good milestone and we should get it done if we can by
    that time, but to be mindful of the needed format. I am happy to
    help.

    Rachel: I will do the content and turn it over to someone else for
    the formatting.
    ... will let you know if I can not find someone to format.

    Hughb: I may be able to help

    ACTION: Hugh - help with formatting dat.gov.* memo to meet W3C
    fomatting requirements

    John: Thanks Daniel, Hugh and Rachel. I think the document has come
    along quite well

    Sandro: Thinking through logisitics of publication by Tuesday. The
    difference between Working Draft and Note is something to address.
    ...we need to consider the question of whether Note carries more
    weight? and we need a title that is short.

    <josema> I propose data-gov-memo or data-gov-star-memo or something
    like that, not a big deal ;)

    <Kevin> good morning all, wont be able to join via phone but will
    "listen" in via IRC

    <josema> for the short-name, I mean

    <Kevin> Jose, we could ask COMM what the appropriate name should be

    John: Does anyone have an opinion about exactly what the difference
    means in terms of publication and reception?

    Sandro: Is Working Draft a negative? Note may have more weight...

    <sandro> for shortname, I'd think gov-data so
    [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data

      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data

    Sandro: But if it is not ready to be a Note, we should be frank
    about that.

    Jose: It depends on how we feel about the doc being complete or not.

    Sharron:There is not really a negative aspect of a Working Draft, is
    there? It seems to be a very respected step in the W3C process.

    <Kevin> Sharron, yes, I realize that is w3c process but it is
    hurting perceptions and understanding of our work

    <johnlsheridan> Its "done" but is it "done done"?

    <Kevin> got lots of feedback from DC community, like with issues
    paper draft they are waiting to the final before reviewing or using,
    we dont want that to be the case

    <Kevin> I agree with John, lets say done but revisions and updates
    coming, doc will mature

    <johnlsheridan> status as WD also encourages further participation
    maybe?

    <josema> Kevin, I think that's exactly what a working draft is!

    <josema> (although I understand the issue with "working draft")

    <Kevin> I know, but that is not what our readers think

    <josema> ah, governments... oh, well... ;)

    <Rachel> agree, Sharron - working draft tells people we are still
    looking for their help to polish

    <johnlsheridan> so your vote is for "note" Kevin?

    Daniel: The idea that this will be the starting point for Year 2 is
    a good one. To start the conversation with the greater community

    <Kevin> I am cool with our understanding and w3 process but think we
    need to watch our messaging to community, draft or working draft
    means different things to different people

    <hughb> audience will need to understand better about living
    documents on the Web

    <Kevin> Sharron and Daniel, I like that

    <AdamHarvey> +1 to Note for PR purposes, but I still feel it is a
    Draft on our end

    <josema> we can use the "status" section for that

    John: What is the consensus position. Arguments are balanced on both
    sides of this question...Working Draft or Note?

    <Zakim> josema, you wanted to remind john about need of resolution

    <hughb> draft

    <Kevin> all, we need to leave some of the decision to the comm team,
    they will know better

    <Rachel> I don't know how much people outside w3c understand "note"

    <Rachel> so if we want input from outside w3c, I think "working
    draft" is more meaningful

    <Kevin> Again to Rachel's point, lets let comm decide what it is
    ultimately called and labeled

    <Kevin> after giving them criteria of what it is and what we hope

    Jose: Must resolve that we want to publish the document. Ask the
    group if we agree to publish and the resoultion should appear in the
    minutes

    John: Proposed: that we publish the data.gov.* memo as a Working
    Draft

    <sandro> +1

    <Rinke> +1

    <Daniel_Bennett> +1

    <hughb> +1

    <josema> +1

    <johnlsheridan> +1

    <Rachel> +1

    <Sharron> +1

    <Kevin> -1 but fine

    <AdamHarvey> 0

    <sandro> Kevin, to me "-1" means you strongly object, and will try
    to block this move.

    John: Also use it as an opportunity for people in the government
    community to contribute to this ongoing work

    <Owen> -1 Does "Working Draft" imply that the document is on the
    Recommendation track?

    <sandro> No, Owen.

    <Sylvia> +1

    <Kevin> Sandro, I dont agree but wont block the decision for
    consensus reasons.

    <Owen> OK +1

    <sandro> I'd use "-0" for "I don't like it, but I wont block it"

    John: Can we move on?

    Sandro: Can we say there is no blockage and we have consensus?

    All: agreed

    Sandro: Will talk to webmasters and try to get this published by
    Tuesday

    ACTION: Sandro - coordinate with W3C webmasters to get dat.gov.*
    published by Tuesday

    <Kevin> last comment, we have worked with COMM on outreach and have
    much feedback from reporters who are helping us get the word out,
    draft wont be received well, most will say, ok will wait for final,
    talk to me then.

    Resolved: To publish the data.gov.* as a Working Draft

    <Kevin> me too ok so -0

    <AdamHarvey> Do we still want graphics included with the doc?

    <josema> good question... I was thinking of them as accompanying...
    somehow...

    <Kevin> adam, yes, needed much

    John: Yes if we can have them, but it depends on ETF

    <Daniel_Bennett> yes

    <AdamHarvey> Right on, I'm on ETF, so I can work with Rachel, etc.
    as needed

    ACTION: AdamHarvey - work with Rachel and ETF on graphic content for
    published version of data.gov.* memo

    <Kevin> Edelman and Karen M want to use graphics to convey doc to
    those who arent tech next week

    <josema> included or not, I don't have an opinion, but, yes, please,
    add graphics! :)

    <josema> Adam, I envision an issue with graphics: the pointers; we
    won't have the documents nor the pointers either

    <Daniel_Bennett> wow, most convo on IRC

Face to Face 3

    <Kevin> ready for what is up? next?

    <Kevin> can briefly outline stuff for next week

    Jose: We have had 2 F2F meetings as a group. The best was in DC
    where govt agency reps were included. We discussed having the next
    meeting in Santa Clara in Nov or do something different along the
    lines of what we did in DC
    ... Since the last F2F was in US, we thought next one would
    appropriately be in Europe. There is a lot of Open gov activity
    there at this time

    <Kevin> Sharron, I dont think we will get a large group in santa
    clara but open to getting as many of us as possible together

    <Kevin> I am on the plenary committee and we are starting to work
    through the agenda, egov is included

    <Sharron> agreed,Kevin it would be great to catch up in person even
    informally

    <Kevin> agree with Jose on next major planned meeting, should be in
    JLS home

    Jose: my proposal is to organize this meeting in Europe in Nov or
    Dec

    <Kevin> this year?

    <Kevin> might want to wait till spring and some conclusion on our
    funding intitiatives and outreach to get money for travel

    Jose: Ask the group about opinions for a meeting at that time/

    <johnlsheridan> Brussels is the best venue (only 2 hours from London
    via Eurostar)

    John: Excellent idea, Brussels is good venue, easy to get to on the
    train, draw out some help-in-kind from commission

    Owen: If you think it will bring additional support to these
    efforts, it would be great

    <josema> I very much hope so, that's one of the goals

    Jose: egov conference in Sweden is another possibility, mid-November

    <Kevin> sharron, that is a week after plenary in CA, I couldnt make
    it

    Jose: Personal Democracy forum coming to Europe - Barcelona in
    November

    <josema> just my personal opinion for now...

    <Daniel_Bennett> note for US, Nov 21st through 28 heavy
    vacation/Thanksgiving travel

    <josema> thanks, Daniel, we need to keep it in mind, too, since I'd
    expect remotees to join (at least at times)

    <josema> yup

    Jose: Will explore the feasibility and propose specific dates

    ACTION: Jose - Will explore the feasibility of various European
    venues and conference collaborations and propose specific dates.

    <Kevin> agreed with Daniel and +1 on Jose comment

    <Daniel_Bennett> [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

    <josema> 2-6 Nov 2009

    <Kevin> I agree with Jose, would love to have Rachel there, its
    close right?

    <Daniel_Bennett> Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, California,
    (Silicon Valley) USA

    <Daniel_Bennett> 2 November - 6 November 2009

    <josema> not too far for her, I believe

    <Kevin> cant wait, reservations already made..

    <josema> ah, spokane-santa clara = 900 miles (not far)

    <AdamHarvey> john are you muted?

    <josema> arghhh.

What's going on/coming up

    <Kevin> want me to cover next week?

    <johnlsheridan> yes please

    <Kevin> OK. chairs are meeting with comm at 11am, edelman is putting
    a media plan together

    <Kevin> for next week which will leverage data.gov memo

    <Kevin> and work of group

    <Kevin> Karen Meyers and Sandro will be joining me at expo and
    summit, Karen is trying to schedule meetings with different folks as
    well

    <josema> Kevin, next week? or do you mean next IG call?

    <Kevin> we are looking to leverage event to promote group work

    John: Main aim for next week is to leave the data.gov.* memo with
    the group
    ...My collegue, Richard Sterling from Cabinet office will be there
    and I will introduce him to Karen and Kevin

    <Kevin> will attempt to send a summary of media plan and activities
    to group by COB Friday

    ACTION: Kevin - to send a summary of media plan and activities to
    group by COB Friday

    John: anyone else going to Gov 2.0 conference?

    <AdamHarvey> Wanted to attend Gov 2.0 , but can't afford it...

    <Kevin> Should also cover XBRL conference if Daniel can and there
    are no summit questions

    <Sylvia> wanted too but no budget

    <Kevin> We would like to get a couple pages of new egov site up for
    next week if that is possible BTW

    <josema> [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/xbrl/cfp.html

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/xbrl/cfp.html

    <Kevin> Karen is working on outreach and I am getting emails out to
    govt people this week, we have discussed getting a side meeting of
    egov people together around oct 4 or 7th

    <Kevin> in DC at FDIC

    <Owen> XML in Practice conference September 30 & October 1:
    [15]http://www.idealliance.org/conferences_and_events/xmlinpractice_
    2009_conference__exposition

      [15] http://www.idealliance.org/conferences_and_events/xmlinpractice_2009_conference__exposition

    Daniel: will be speaking, if anyone wants to attend send a note, I
    can arrange

    <Kevin> Forgot an item, Daniel, we wanted to know if you would be
    available next week to chat to media if the opportunity comes up

    <Daniel_Bennett> yes

    <Daniel_Bennett> I will send all my contact info to you

    <Kevin> excellent, thank you!!

    Owen: I received invitation but it is cost prohibitive. Is there any
    expo or free part that I could attend?

    <Kevin> I hurt when I paid the money, particularly with AIA funds

    <Kevin> out of my VP Admin budget..

    Sandro: Isn't first day an expo?

    <Kevin> yes, I got a free invite on Friday given I was paid for
    conference

    Owen: They encourage you to request an invitation, which I did and
    only then learned of the cost.

    <Kevin> which showed they were getting low registration for expo (my
    conclusion)

    <josema> fully agree with Owen

    <Kevin> ditto from me owen and sharron

    <AdamHarvey> ditto for me as well

    John: Online Information conference in London, proposed significant
    focus on semantic content, inquired about some egov features of work

    <josema> FOSE 2010 proposal?

    <johnlsheridan> go ahead :)

    Owen: Presentation proposals for FOSE have been closed, but imagine
    they would entertain a proposal for us to have a F2F in conjunction

    <Kevin> we got our submission in for panel and workshop

    <Kevin> we have great contact from education director/committee

    <Kevin> he just left on vacation yesterday but got stuff in on time,
    he will champion

    <Kevin> very interested in w3c and egov work

    <Owen> FOSE March 23 - 25:
    [16]http://1105govinfoevents.com/event_planning/cfp.asp?Conference=2
    95

      [16] http://1105govinfoevents.com/event_planning/cfp.asp?Conference=295

    JOse: Mid-March next year may provide a good opportunity. Will know
    more when we get response to our submitted proposals
    ... Impressed with the organization of Personal Democracy Conference
    Europe. Have secured place for myself. The Barcelona conference is
    great but in same week as another governemtn conference, posing
    conflict for many government officials

    <johnlsheridan> malmo or barcelona - whats the weather like in
    barcelona that time of year?

    <josema> I plan to attend both (crazy me!)

    <Kevin> good rates to barcelona and madrid from UNITED in March,
    starting new flights, I think 400 round trip

    John: In UK we are fantastically busy around linked data and will
    have some announcements soon.

    Jose: Facing the question of the maturity of the semantic web
    technology, many see the potential but don't completely understand.
    My opinion is that the tech has matured but government use has not.
    That is where our work is.

    <Kevin> + 1 sharron

    Jose: Believe the memo will be very helpful

    John: Using the phrase that it is "newly mature"

    <Rachel> we're laughing on the inside, John

    John: If there is nothing to add, we can adjourn. Thanks everyone.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: John - Support and reach out to other AC reps to
    encourage support of eGov Charter
    [NEW] ACTION: Rachel - Within ETF, draft next version of dat.gov.*
    memo, focusing on content
    [NEW] ACTION: Hugh - help with formatting dat.gov.* memo to meet W3C
    fomatting requirements
    [NEW] ACTION: Sandro - coordinate with W3C webmasters to get
    dat.gov.* published by Tuesday
    [NEW] ACTION: AdamHarvey - work with Rachel and ETF on graphic
    content for published version of data.gov.* memo
    [NEW] ACTION: Jose - Will explore the feasibility of various
    European venues and conference collaborations and propose specific
    dates.[End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([18]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/09/03 10:26:08 $

      [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 10:31:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 September 2009 10:31:29 GMT