Dear All

I would like to express my appreciation for the new directions for the eGov IG. I am afraid that I have not been very active, largely due to my heavy workload this past year. My interest is in development and social media, and I have worked on ICT projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. I blog on these issue on CommGap at present, a World Bank blog and this is a subject that I am quite passionate about. I was recently invited to participate in an UN expert panel on e-government assessment framework and will also be publishing a chapter in a book about e-government soon. I would like to involve more development agencies in the excellent work that this group is doing. There are two aspects to the use of social media and governance. One is technical, and the other is policy. I am interested in policy. We can perhaps either have two subgroups, one on policy and one on technical aspects with two chairs, or we could have two co-chairs. In either case, I would like to propose myself as the policy chair for the Social Media eGov Task Force.


Tanya Gupta
Corporate Planning & Analysis
Corporate Finance and Risk Management Vice Presidency
The World Bank
202-458-8252 (O), 202-614-0866 (Fax)

Inactive hide details for Michael Hausenblas ---12/17/2010 02:51:19 AM---All, I like Ed's approach regarding the new eGov IG. MMichael Hausenblas ---12/17/2010 02:51:19 AM---All, I like Ed's approach regarding the new eGov IG. Maybe the following model


Michael Hausenblas <>


Ed Summers <>, Sandro Hawke <>


W3C eGov IG <>, <>


12/17/2010 02:51 AM


Proposal to structure new eGov IG (was: Re: eGov at W3C: Next Steps.)

Sent by:


I like Ed's approach regarding the new eGov IG. Maybe the following model
could work:

The eGov IG has X Task Forces (TF) and an equal number of co-chairs, that
is, for example, if we settle on 4 TF, there would be 4 co-chairs. I think
there is no need to do IG-wide telecons or F2F meetings besides TPAC or a
alike. Each Task Force is dedicated to a certain topic. I propose - based on
the current eGov IG charter draft - the following topics and chairs (hence
team-egov@w3 in CC):

1. eGov Interoperability TF
Deals with standards and best-practices from other bodies, including
IETF/OASIS/etc., which could also address the 'data dynamics' bits set out
by Ed.

Chair: I nominate Ed Summers (if Ed can't, maybe someone from SEMIC.EU?)

2. eGov Accessibility TF
Working together with WAI groups, this TF connects government people with
WAI resources and develops best practices for Accessibility in PSI.

Chair: ?

3. eGov Social Media TF
Develops best practices for using social media platforms in PSI, incl.
Twitter, FB, etc.

Chair: ?

4. eGov Cloud Computing TF
Provides overview on available CC offerings (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS), including
hybrid CC setups and cost/benefits and best practices.

Chair: (not sure if I can nominate myself, but ...) I nominate myself.


Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

> From: Ed Summers <>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:51:59 -0500
> To: W3C eGov IG <>
> Subject: Re: eGov at W3C: Next Steps.
> Resent-From: W3C eGov IG <>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:55:12 +0000
> Hi Thomas,
> Thanks for the update about plans in the egov space at the w3c. In the
> past I've been somewhat outspoken about not splitting off work on
> Linked Data from the use of the web in egov generally. The reason for
> this is that I've found it's often difficult to transition work that's
> done by a group of people who all agree that the everything is going
> to be in RDF, with the larger world of the web where people need to be
> convinced to deploy data as RDF instead of some other representation
> (XML, JSON, HTML, CSV, etc).
> But I understand that sometimes there is too much overhead to having
> these general discussions when trying to knock out some specific
> deliverables, and that this type of analysis/discussion could take
> place in the general interest group. So I can live with there being
> two efforts. I've included a few comments/questions below:
>> From the eGov IG charter [1]
> """
> This group is chartered to serve as a connector among people,
> especially government employees, looking for ways to use W3C
> technologies to improve government services and operations. We believe
> these technologies can provide significant benefit to governments of
> all sizes, including city, regional, and national governments, in all
> part of whe world.
> """
> Would it be possible to broaden the scope a bit by s/looking for ways
> to use W3C technologies/looking for ways to use Web technologies/? The
> reason why I ask is that there are bodies like IETF and OASIS that
> work on specifications/standards that are relevant in the egov space.
> It would be good if this interest group could discuss these as
> particular if review and/or recommendation of web
> technologies developed outside of the W3C is required or desirable.
> The Government Linked Data Working Group charter [1] includes the
> following as out-of-scope:
> """
> A mechanism for notification and propagation of changes to datasets,
> part of the field of dataset dynamics, such as SPARQL Push.
> """
> My personal opinion is that it is essential that the W3C provide
> practical guidance on how to announce new and updated egov data. It is
> particularly important for hubs like,
>, to help in the collection of data
> assets from the places where it is generated (typically agencies
> within the government); and it is also important to enable communities
> of data consumers outside of government.
> I think the W3C is uniquely situated to provide guidance on how egov
> data efforts can leverage the decentralized nature of the Web to fit
> the realities of the government data generation. I think Erik Wilde
> and his colleagues at Berkeley nicely summarized why attention in this
> area is needed [3]. If this needs to be out of scope for the
> Government Linked Data Working Group (and I think it does since it's
> not really limited to RDF) I would like to see it added to the scope
> of the Interest Group charter. If you would like suggested text for
> the IG charter I could propose some.
> I also noticed that GovData is used in places in both documents (and
> the URI for the charter) and would like to see "Linked" consistently
> spliced into the working group's name if it's scope is going to be
> limited to RDF technologies.
> And finally just a typo that popped out at me in the eGov IG charter [1]:
> s/in all part of whe world./in all parts of the world/
> Thanks!
> //Ed
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]