W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity

From: Chris Beer <chris-beer@grapevine.net.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:22:58 +1100
Message-ID: <4B66C7A2.5050703@grapevine.net.au>
To: rachel.flagg@gsa.gov
CC: Owen.Ambur@verizon.net, 'eGovIG IG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hey all

Well. It is with egg on my face, and a completely humbled demeanor, that 
I write this latest post. And next time I spout off without obviously 
knowing my stuff - please tell me. Be blunt :) "OMG Chris you are so 
full of crap" is quite acceptable.

@ Dave Mac, Joe and Owen - Thankyou. Seriously. I stand completely 
corrected on my previous attitudes to PDF, from its status as a 
standard, through to what you can do with it. Some fairly hefty reading 
has certainly made me do a fairly hefty backflip on a stance I have held 
for so long, it really was from the earliest proprietry days of PDF, and 
never seriously updated. In short, I have seen the light. Well - I've 
certainly seen the possibilities of PDF and what you can do with it. :) 
God bless my Department for including the full PDF authoring suites in 
my CS4 install - I've been really pushing it for the first time (rather 
than being a lazy PDF web publisher/author), and well, I'm impressed - 
that's for sure.

@ David P - change of mind - yes - I'd back standards on PDFs in the 
.gov.* sphere. And I'll be knocking up some myself for my Department and 
passing them around the .gov.au space for comment - would love to 
compare/collaborate when we have drafts.

@ Rachel and to where the discussion has progressed:

To begin - this is definately being made a part of TF 4 - Government 
Publications is a key Government Service, and one with a long history in 
the online space. A one stop, catch all, PDF how to, IG Note is 
certainly worthy of consideration for the group IMO. And I'm glad we 
have Owen/AIIM and Dave Mac here with us ;)

So - to a very large degree, I am one of those people. Or certainly I do 
have the power to shape the policy in my agencies publishing 
environment. So ok - how would I do it. Or rather, how will I do it...

"for some agencies, old habits die hard and there will probably be a 
push to publish at least some of these plans as glossy PDFs with pretty 
pictures........ so we need to make sure that content creators are 
creating these PDFs correctly
-  the solution must be explainable in non-techie language, to help 
agency web managers convince their bosses of the "right" way to do this, 
so plans are accessible (in all ways) to the public"

I think there are a couple of other points to keep in mind as well while 
we discuss this.

    * Not every Agency will have access to the full Adobe suite of
      products for PDF production, if any. The solution must be
      explainable as platform independent and agency size (ie: personnel
      and ICT tech limitations in mind) independent - assume that
      agencies could be using everything from Adobe to Word to
      GoogleDocs to OpenOffice and everything in between. And that they
      may have a standardised architecture, or they may not. They may
      have a central publications office. They may not.
    * Not every Agency, or indeed, employees tasked with production of a
      publication in an Agency, will have a) a Publishing or IT
      background and b) access to training (due to funds or otherwise)
      to learn PDF production indepth. Old habits will certainly die
      hard, and one click "save as PDF" will still be utilised by many.
      (Hint).

There seems to be no ONE place that offers "simple, step-by-step 
guidance for creating machine, human and assistive technology - readable 
PDF's." Certainly not with the points listed above and others we haven't 
thought of. The other issue I am seeing is the usual Trust and 
Provenance one. Most of the tutorials and how to guides aren't from a 
"reputable source" in that sense - standards orgs, W3C, etc. The 
tutorials that are, like the Adobe ones, focus on a particular product 
line for production, and so aren't generic enough. Or they are situation 
specific - not a step-by-step approach but rather a "how to do this one 
thing with a PDF". Many seem to follow the current trend of using video 
tutorials, which is also an issue when in the .gov.* space as many 
networks we work on limit access to videos etc.

*Default settings in the creation of PDF files in the .gov.* space:* The 
more I think about the whole .gov.* PDF creation process within this 
discusison, the more questions get raised. For instance - do we assume 
that the agency in question has a Document or Records Management system? 
No - but for those that do, it can be a step in the right direction if 
policy can be implemented around what options are turned on by default 
for PDF creation software, what metadata fields are included in each 
document (and are mandatory to be filled in) and so on. That said, 
either way, part of our how-to guide must focus on PDF creator settings 
- what is available, types of PDF files, and why simply hitting "save as 
PDF" is not a good thing when producing a document for the rest of the 
world to view and not just printing something off. Identifying and 
encouraging adoption of a "preferred" set of options for PDF creator 
software would also be a plus.

*Accessibility:* In Australia the standard line is that documents 
provided as PDF's can be made "accessible" if you provide an RTF version 
alongside it. I'm sure we're not the only ones who interpret WCAG in 
that way either. Since my discovery of the concept of PDF/UA (nod to 
Owen and AIIM) this suddenly not only seems redundant, but quite silly - 
with PDF/UA not only superseding the need for RTF, but in many cases, we 
could produce PDF files that in fact read better than any print version 
- the idea of spoken word PDF documents isn't a bad one :)

(As a side note - Australia has just undertaken a PDF Accessibility 
Review ( http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/PDF_Accessibility_Review ) no 
details of the final review or submissions have been released yet, but I 
will contact AGIMO (also a W3C member) tomorrow when I get to work to 
seek to get any information I can on it for the immediate discussion, 
and an idea of when the review will be published.)

*Meta-data and machine-readability, document findability and preserving 
Government publications online: *Identifying and encouraging the use of 
metadata schema's is obviously a must, as well as teaching others how to 
go about including this in a PDF document. Obviously including these 
fields (automated where possible) in a PDF "template" by default is a 
bonus for any agency. Part of the key to working with agencies and PDF 
files that I've found, is not to focus on "new technologies" such as LGD 
and the semantic web. These still confuse and irritate old-guard types - 
however one thing that every agency has in common world wide (for the 
most part), and one thing they do see the value in, is meeting thier 
legal requirements. Because they have to. And these requirements usually 
include Archiving and Preservation of Government publications. However 
most are still struggling, or are not used to, how to do this in the 
online space. This is where metadata schemas such as RDA (developed for 
Libraries and Archives, replacing the Marc21 Library of Congress 
standards used worldwide) can be put forward as a easy solution to 
meeting archiving and records management requirements - and hey - they 
just happen to make documents machine readable and linkable ;) That said 
though - I would still (and am) encourage my agency (and others) to 
include a two-tiered persistant URI solution in which an extra layer of 
abstraction (ie: a HTML page containing an abstract/catalogue 
information/ metadata obtained from the PDF file or the database it 
resides in) is presented prior to download. This would also assist in 
web crawling by external stakeholders and assist in managing versioning, 
perferred copies based on detection (eg: language or accessibility 
specific) and the inevitable expiry and archiving of the document (ie: 
by providing information about the PDF document, even though the 
document itself is no longer available, or a redirect to where it now 
resides). This is also a best practice that can be extended to any 
resource type, not just PDFs (another bonus to management, as its a 
generic solution to a few problems).

All of these comments are broad strokes on a canvas at this point, and 
probably a little scattered - they aren't necessarily non-techie 
friendly (we'll leave that for the final version?), nor are they 
complete. But they are where my mind is centered at work atm, so they'll 
do. I also accept that we're going to see style over substance winning 
out in a lot of cases with PDF, but I'm now of the mind that our 
approach, and that of the pretty glossy pictures brigade, are not 
mutually exclusive.

Very eager to hear what others are thinking around the whole issue. As 
luck? would have it, and as mentioned in a previous mail to the list, I 
am actually in the process of developing a document repository, with 
some 20-30,000 PDF files to go into it. All of them will need to be made 
machine readable, and accessible, and everything else we're discussing 
(including how-to guides - I have to write something along these very 
lines as a training package for business areas, librarians, and the 
external data migration company as well as proposing policy and 
governance around the future of online publications production and 
management, especially PDF's in the next 2 -6 weeks, if that.)

Cheers

Chris


On 30/01/2010 9:57 AM, rachel.flagg@gsa.gov wrote:
>
> +1 to Owen's statement in a previous post".. let me assure you that I 
> am going to be one ticked off taxpayer if .gov agencies continue to 
> insist upon flaunting style over substance in publishing their 
> strategic and performance plans (including their open gov plans)."
>
> +1 to Brian's comment below that, if there are better ways to create 
> PDFs, then we need to tell people.
>
> So in the interest of transparent, participatory and collaborative 
> government, my question to the group is this....
>
> If you were in charge of publishing government agency 
> strategic/OpenGovt plans... how would you do it?
>
> Keep these points in mind:
>  - for some agencies, old habits die hard and there will probably be a 
> push to publish at least some of these plans as glossy PDFs with 
> pretty pictures........ so we need to make sure that content creators 
> are creating these PDFs correctly
> -  the solution must be explainable in non-techie language, to help 
> agency web managers convince their bosses of the "right" way to do 
> this, so plans are accessible (in all ways) to the public
>
> HOW can we do it better?
> Is there ONE place that offers simple, step-by-step guidance for 
> creating machine-readable PDFs, that we point out to agencies and tell 
> them to follow that model?
>
> I think we all agree that context, style and substance are all 
> important - so how can we combine all those into one end product that 
> meets all those needs?
>
> Government agencies are trying really hard to get this right - what 
> tools can you recommend to help agencies deliver?
>
> Thanks!
> -Rachel
>
> -------------------------------
> Rachel Flagg
> Web Content Manager
>  and Co-Chair, Federal Web Managers Council
> Government Web Best Practices Team
> Office of Citizen Services
> U.S. General Services Administration
> rachel.flagg@gsa.gov
> www.webcontent.gov - Better websites. Better government.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>*
> Sent by: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
>
> 01/29/2010 02:22 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"'eGovIG IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian, with reference to my separate message and the text of your 
> draft cited by Dave below, I would also point out that:
>
> a)      HTML is a presentation format and, thus, is about style rather 
> than substance (meaning), and
> b)      RDF may be “serialized” in XML: 
> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework#Serialization_formats_ 
>
>
> Besides XFDL, MS’s XML Paper Specification (XPS) is another XML 
> vocabulary dealing with style. 
> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Paper_Specification_
>
> Adobe’s Mars Project is described as “an XML-friendly representation 
> of PDF documents”: _http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/mars/_
>
> Owen
>
> *From:* public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Gryth*
> Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2010 4:51 PM*
> To:* Dave McAllister; Owen Ambur*
> Cc:* eGovIG IG*
> Subject:* Re: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
>
> Dave,
>
> I apologize for the error and it has been corrected.
>
> + 1 to Owen's statements.  That is why I would suggest that we need to 
> focus on educating people on the best approach to creating PDFs.  If a 
> PDF can be created with the necessary raw data, metadata, or what have 
> you that makes the document more machine readable than we need to tell 
> people.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Dave McAllister <_dmcallis@adobe.com_ 
> <mailto:dmcallis@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
> Just for completeness (and since the group has heard this before.
>
> One objection...
>
> In this sentence, you lump a standard, PDF with two 
> implementations/products.
> /
> The W3C, the Sunlight Foundation, and other open government advocates 
> recommend that government's should use open standards based 
> technologies, such as HTML, XML, or RDF, rather than proprietary 
> formats, such as PDF, Microsoft Word or Excel, when publishing data. /
>
> PDF is not proprietary, it is an open International standard, ISO 
> 32000, under TC171.
>
> Adobe products such as Acrobat and Acrobat Reader are proprietary... 
> And yes, if you choose to state Acrobat here, then I’ll live with it. 
> But I worked really hard to separate PDF from Adobe specification to 
> ISO standard.
>
> Thanks for the insight into the letter.
>
> davemc
>
>
> On 1/29/10 1:10 PM, "Brian Gryth" <_briangryth@gmail.com_ 
> <http://briangryth@gmail.com/>> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks for the good discussion.  It has been helpful.  I have created 
> a Google Doc to capture my thoughts.  It is a draft letter that I plan 
> to send to member of the Colorado General Assembly concerning the 
> school finance bill I identified.  The doc is viewable at 
> _https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Aev3E7WkLorMZGhkcGhkYjlfOXpudzNkNWZ0&hl=en_ 
> <https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Aev3E7WkLorMZGhkcGhkYjlfOXpudzNkNWZ0&hl=en> 
> (please let me know if you would like access to edit the doc.)
>
> As to this discussion, I think that it can best be described as the 
> PDF+ approach.  As Joe has frequently and correctly pointed out, PDF 
> use is persistent and this will not change.  (Adobe has been very 
> effective in making their product ubiquitous.)  Replacing PDF is going 
> to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.  Therefore, we need to 
> education the government community on the best practices for creating 
> PDF documents or the best approach to augment PDF publication.
>
> Again thank you for the information and please continue the discussion 
> or help revise and improve the document I linked to above.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Joe Carmel <_joe.carmel@comcast.net_ 
> <http://joe.carmel@comcast.net/>> wrote:
> David,
>
> PDF is probably the most flexible human-readable electronic format we 
> humans have invented and provides one of the richest possible 
> electronic formats ever devised in terms of capabilities (text, 
> graphics, color, image, audio, video, forms, printability, digital 
> signatures, metadata, file attachments, and archiving).  With no 
> disrespect, it seems like the problem for many is that PDF is not 
> readable and consumable with a text editor.  While this is true, there 
> are several public domain and commercial tools that provide developers 
> with access to PDF file contents (even converting page contents to 
> XML).  Given these overwhelming benefits and the substantial use of 
> the format on the human-side of the web, it’s very unlikely that PDF 
> is going away.  Even if everyone stopped using it, there would still 
> be over 26 million PDF files (per Google) on the web from the .gov 
> sites alone.  Since the PDF format allows metadata inclusion and file 
> attachments, I think getting the word out about how these and other 
> features add interoperability to PDF should encourage practices that 
> lead to combining human and machine readability for all electronically 
> published information.
>
> HTM  30,800,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ahtm&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ahtm&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> HTML27,700,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ahtml&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ahtml&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> PDF    26,100,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Apdf&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Apdf&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> ASP    13,100,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Aasp&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Aasp&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> TXT     2,980,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Atxt&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Atxt&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> DOC    2,310,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Adoc&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Adoc&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> XLS     1,880,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Axls&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Axls&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> XML    1,010,000 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Axml&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Axml&aq=f&aqi=&oq=> 
>
> RDF             3,240 
> _http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ardf&aq=f&aqi=&oq=_ 
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.gov+filetype%3Ardf&aq=f&aqi=&oq=>
>
> Also, see _http://legislink.wikispaces.com/message/view/home/14870950_ 
> for more tech info.
>
> Joe
>
>
> *
> From:* David Pullinger [_mailto:David.Pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk_] *
> Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2010 9:27 AM*
> To:* _chris-beer@grapevine.net.au_ <http://chris-beer@grapevine.net.au/>*
> Cc:* Kevin' 'Novak; Joe Carmel; 'Brian Gryth'; 'eGovIG IG'*
> Subject:* Re: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> Let me assure you that I'm not in favour of PDF for data or 
> communication, the critical words were ...'those who insist on..'   
> Let me draw a comparison.  The government is not in favour of people 
> taking drugs.  But we provide information to help those who do.  Our 
> friends at Adobe should not draw the analogy too far as I just mean 
> that sometimes we engage in harm reduction - in this case to get at 
> good re-usable data.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Pullinger
> _
> __david.pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk_ <http://david.pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk/>
>
> Head of Digital Policy
>
> Central Office of Information
>
> Hercules House
>
> 7 Hercules Road
>
> London SE1 7DU
>
> 020 7261 8513
>
> 07788 872321
>
>
> Twitter #digigov and blogs: _www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov_ 
> <http://www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov> 
> <_http://www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov_>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Chris Beer <_chris-beer@grapevine.net.au_ 
> <http://chris-beer@grapevine.net.au/>> 28/01/2010 12:05 >>>
> Hey Brian, everyone
>
> Wouldn't be right if I didn't pop the TF4 hat on and respond into the 
> conversation ;) I already sent Brian an email offering to assist, but 
> since we're doing this in list... :)
>
> Personally and professionally,  I have issues with "data", if not any 
> government information, being published in PDF formats as well as how 
> PDF files are used in general, not only by Gov, but by the Private 
> sector as well.
>
> IMO The only three reasons (and only if you had to) to use PDF is a) 
> as an archive snapshot of a document and b) for document control - 
> that is - when you don't want a document to be altered by users such 
> as in the case of a manifestation or publication of a piece of 
> legislation, tenders etc - hence why you can embed digital signatures, 
> lock them from editing, etc etc. and c) With accessible Smart Forms, 
> which are actually just such a cool idea and so very useful as an 
> assistive technology, and for both the user, and the owner - that said 
> these all still have issues around being in PDF.
>
> The general usage, however, seems to be for anything and everything 
> that can be published. Want a printable version? Download the PDF file.
>
> Rather than focus on the pitfalls of using PDF's in the .gov.* space 
> (which I'm more than happy to discuss with anyone - especially David 
> in light of his comments ;) ), I'll focus on the topic at hand. I've 
> had a look at the Fiscal Note Brian provided as well as the proposed 
> Act and I'm a little stunned by the leap of logic in this sense.
>
> A careful reading of the Bill reveals that throughout, information is 
> required to be "posted on-line, in a downloadable format". Now if I 
> was a clever Web Manager in charge of implementing my local schools 
> requirements under this bill, I could quickly and easily meet these 
> requirements through a CMS enabled website/database - the act of 
> viewing a webpage is, by definition, downloading information. Not only 
> that, but I could point at my model and highlight the fact that:
>
> a) The data supports RDF(a), XML, StratML etc in a far more useful and 
> usable format than a PDF version
>
> b) I can send my schemas to other schools, or even the Department (who 
> might want to create a centralised model) to enable consistancy of 
> data formatting, not just a pretty view of the data
>
> c) I can deliver my data in a range of open standard formats, from 
> such as binary, CSV, HTML, XML, etc using very basic, free, vendor 
> independant and accessible technologies
>
> d) I can export a customisable view of this data on demand as a PDF 
> file /if/ needed... (think the export as PDF function of Google 
> Analytics dashboard reports.) But I can also export it in a variety of 
> other propriety formats on demand.
>
> e) I can very easily track the usage and access of this data by the 
> public through web analytics. If I track it well enough, and 
> agressively enough, I can start to analyse which parts of the data are 
> the most useful (for instance I might well find that visits from .edu 
> domains (ie: teachers) show a marked interest in salary schedule 
> comparisons) and I can tailor the solution from a push Web 1.0 model 
> to a information on demand Web 2.0 model.)
>
> f) I can allow others, including other arms of Local, State and 
> Federal Governments, through API's and mashups, to mix my data with 
> other data to provide interesting information - like financial data 
> mapped against student result averages.
>
> A couple of other things to consider with the financial and workload 
> aspects in mind, is that technically (and correct me if I am wrong) 
> each and every PDF release of this data would be classed as a 
> government publication and will require not only ISBN numbers etc, but 
> entry into the Library of Congress or State equivalent, catalogues as 
> well. A single website, being considered as an Intergrated Resource, 
> technically would require only a single catalogue entry...
>
> The Fiscal Note also reads "It is assumed that financial documents can 
> be electronically converted into a portable document format (PDF) or 
> image file (tiff, gif, jpg), and posted online at minimal cost, and 
> that software to convert documents and software to modify websites is 
> readily available at the district level."
>
> Now thats an interesting assumption - and it is just that - an 
> assumption. Considering publishing the information as HTML etc is 
> effectively free.
>
> These are only some initial thoughts, but you get the idea. Happy to 
> discuss.
>
> David - would love to discuss your thoughts around the standards and 
> governance on PDF, but it'd probably off topic in this thread. Drop me 
> a line and expand on things :)
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> David Pullinger wrote:
>
> Both,
>
>
>
> As well as separate data files, it is perfectedly possible to embed 
> RDF(a) into PDF files, as other markup, and so provide access to 
> Linked Data thereby...
>
>
>
> We're considering whether or not to issue standards in this area so 
> that those who insist on releasing information in PDF files 
> nevertheless don't put a block on Linked Data.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Pullinger
> _
> __david.pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk_ <http://david.pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk/>
>
> Head of Digital Policy
>
> Central Office of Information
>
> Hercules House
>
> 7 Hercules Road
>
> London SE1 7DU
>
> 020 7261 8513
>
> 07788 872321
>
>
> Twitter #digigov and blogs: _www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov_ 
> <http://www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov> 
> <_http://www.coi.gov.uk/blogs/digigov_>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Joe Carmel" <_joe.carmel@comcast.net_ 
> <http://joe.carmel@comcast.net/>> <_mailto:joe.carmel@comcast.net_> 
>  26/01/2010 18:56 >>>
> Brian,
> One option to consider might be XForms (and XSLTForms in particular). 
>  Although I’m not familiar with the school district financial data, it 
> seems like publishing an XForm on a central website and mandating that 
> school districts fill it out would be easy to create, maintain, and 
> implement.  The output files could then be posted centrally and/or 
> locally.
> I’m working with Owen Ambur and several others on something like this 
> for StratML.  Check out 
> _http://www.xmldatasets.net/XF2/stratmlxform3.xml_.   It’s still being 
> developed but it might serve as an example.  The idea is to provide a 
> way to create, import, update, display, and finally catalog StratML 
> fles across the web.
> Joe
> *
> From:* _public-egov-ig-request@w3.org_ 
> <http://public-egov-ig-request@w3.org/> 
> [_mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org_] *On Behalf Of *Novak, Kevin*
> Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:13 PM*
> To:* Brian Gryth; eGovIG IG*
> Subject:* RE: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
> Brian,
> I am here to help you.
> I can provide input and opinion on the piece you are developing. I 
> concur with your assessment of PDF. Other options in addition must be 
> considered.
> Kevin*
> From:* _public-egov-ig-request@w3.org_ 
> <http://public-egov-ig-request@w3.org/> 
> [_mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org_] *On Behalf Of *Brian Gryth*
> Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:08 PM*
> To:* eGovIG IG*
> Subject:* Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
>
> Good day all,
>
> Members of the Colorado General Assembly introduced legislation 
> recently that would mandate school districts to publish certain 
> financial data in a down loadable format.  The bill is HB10-1036 and 
> is available at _http://legislink.org/us-co?HB10-1036_.  This is a 
> good thing on the surface.  What concerns me is the fiscal impact 
> statement associated with the legislation.  The concerning part of the 
> fiscal impact statement focuses on the information being released in 
> PDF or in an image format (e.g. JPEG, TIFF, GIF), but does not talk 
> about other formats.  The fiscal note is available at 
> _http://bit.ly/80RBiu_.  As has been discussed by this group and in 
> other places, PDF only publication is not the best method of 
> publishing government data.
>
> Therefore, I saw this as a perfect opportunity for some education and 
> outreach.  I am planning on putting some summarized information 
> together that will discuss data publication methods to sent to the 
> bill sponsors and other members of the Colorado legislature.  I also 
> plan on speaking at the Senate hearing for the bill as a concerned 
> citizen.
>
> I would appreciate the assistance of anyone wishing to help me out. 
>  Please feel free to e-mail me and I will share a Google Doc I will be 
> using to draft the materials.
>
> Thanks
> Brian
>
> This communication is confidential and copyright.
> Anyone coming into unauthorised possession of it should disregard its 
> content and erase it from their records.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government 
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by 
> Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to 
> achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 
> 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for 
> information security products and services. For more information about 
> this please visit _www.cctmark.gov.uk_ <http://www.cctmark.gov.uk/> 
> <_http://www.cctmark.gov.uk/_>
>
>
> This communication is confidential and copyright.
> Anyone coming into unauthorised possession of it should disregard its 
> content and erase it from their records.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government 
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by 
> Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to 
> achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 
> 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for 
> information security products and services. For more information about 
> this please visit _www.cctmark.gov.uk_ <http://www.cctmark.gov.uk/> 
> <_http://www.cctmark.gov.uk/_>
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 12:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 February 2010 12:23:33 GMT