- From: Chris Beer <chris-beer@grapevine.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:37:08 +1100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: team-egov-chairs@w3.org, W3C e-Gov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Sandro No problems, I've included the list this time round - didn't last time as Brian had sent me the initial response personally, and I was replying in kind while cc'ing a few others into it. Rest assured I wasn't trying to exclude anyone. Re: my thoughts - not at all!! And I apologise if I gave the the impression that I was talking "us and them". Of course there is considerable overlap between all of the projects and most if not all IG members have signed up for all of them. It really was just thoughts around possible approaches to Brian's concerns that we need to move forward, while considering that some of the projects are starting to *appear* to require slightly different approaches in generating deliverables. I could well be wrong - I'm always happy to bow to those with more experience in these matters, and to general concensus. End of the day - they are just thoughts. I'm sure I'll stop dwelling on this once we have the initial Web Tech call happens next week (since we're weekly atm? and should be back for it) and I have something to focus on :) Cheers Chris On 21/02/2010 12:26 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> I'm cc'ing all those who have shown a serious interest in our projects >> to date. Any of you, please forward this on to other members you know >> have a serious interest so they too can comment. >> > Could you please re-send this to the IG mailing list, so it can be > properly discussed, if you want it discussed? > > (I don't understand your argument at all, by the way. Are you thinking > you can convince Social Media folks to be helpful participants, but not > Linked Data folks? What's your evidence of that? It seems to me > there's something to be done talking in smaller groups, as well as in > larger groups, but grouping one set of three together... I don't see > that. (BTW, the two of the Linked Data groups are meeting together, not > three.)) > > -- Sandro > > >> I think the main issue around LD vs WebTech/DM/SM are that there is a >> solid core of the IG who are already working heavily in the LD field, >> either with other W3C working groups or with other organisations. It >> should be noted that they too are having numbers issues - no more than 6 >> people on their calls to date. LD is already well on its way as a >> technology within the Public Sector, and has been for years - every >> statistician has an interest, as does the various agencies that collect >> data and of course the research sector. LD is also very similiar in >> principle to the normal standards work that the W3C already does. There >> is a lot of work already underway, and the majority of the LD work from >> the telecons centres around linking these works and projects together. >> Now - none of this is a bad thing - it's just a different kettle of fish >> to our projects. >> >> The nature of WebTech/DM/SM is more murky. We are dealing with concepts >> and technology that is a) very very new on the most part (and I do >> include DM in that, in a Web 2.0 sense) and b) is heavily reliant on >> Better Practices AND policy, governance and legislation. And there is >> not a lot out there of either - most interested in these things around >> the place (not just the IG) seem to feel that they are working alone, >> and without precedence to aid them. This is also not a bad thing - it's >> just something we need to be aware of. >> >> I agree in that it does appear we need to move forward "by other means". >> I would like to suggest the following: >> >> a) Joint telecons for the 3 groups - this will increase numbers (and >> thus discussion) on the calls, and covers off any overlap between >> projects. Please note that I am not suggesting that we merge the groups >> as the LD crew have done. Just the telecons. I also think we firmly >> commit to fortnightly calls rather than weekly for the same reasons - it >> will increase numbers and discussion. >> >> b) Discussion boards - I know I've raised this before, but I really >> think that in this case its a good way to go - it allows people to post >> as they need and want to, and on a range of issues that can run >> parallel, without needing to commit a whole project - for instance, >> (using DM/LD as an example) we will always get a different group of >> people interested in issues around deidentifying data (a privacy >> concern) than would be interested in hardcore tech issues (OWL vs SKOS >> for instance). I will be setting up a board for the Web Tech project in >> the next few days (assuming by host gets off his arse and sets up my >> mysql server I've requested) - I will be happy to set others up for SM >> and DM if you would so wish. >> >> c) AGILE project/Incubator Group approach - rather than using our >> current development approach to these projects, we could easily use a >> Sprint approach - one week we focus on assembling resources on say, >> existing best practices for web publishing in Europe, the next we focus >> on PDF files, another week we focus on SM usage guidelines, the next we >> focus on how to make SM part of the public record (overlap with DM etc), >> etc etc And this could be done across all 3 of the projects - >> encouraging the synergies between the 3 as well as LD wherever there is >> overlap. At the moment we seem to take a "try to do it all at once >> approach" - but does that approach work in cases like these? >> >> d) Workflow: Set rough direction (Telecon) -> Intensely Discuss (via >> boards) -> Write Draft (wiki) -> Peer reveiw (discussion page wiki) -> >> Rinse -> Repeat until publishable work product is produced. >> >> I look forward to your replies. In the mean time I shall continue to >> troll for any and all resources in the .gov.* domains relating to Best >> Practices for the 3 projects. >> >> Cheers >> >> Chris >> >> PS: Will be out of town for a wedding from (US time) Tuesday through to >> Wednesday night as far as any telecons go, but will keep track of calls >> and attend as I can :) >> >> On 20/02/2010 8:20 AM, Brian Gryth wrote: >> >>> Chris, >>> Rachel and I missed you on the call. Unfornately, Rachel and I were >>> the only people on the call. We had a good discussion. It is >>> appearing that we are going to have to move forward with the group by >>> other means. I still think the work of the group could be useful. >>> However, the Linked Data projects seems to be stealing all of the >>> thunder or man power. Of course, that means those of us that are >>> interested in this effort may have to do some heavy lifting (at least >>> initially). I am going to attempt to pull some stuff together over >>> the weekend. I'll post it to the wiki and send out an e-mail to the list. >>> Thanks for devoting time on this project and I will be in touch. >>> BTW, I posted a series of posts on my blog about developing a Social >>> Media policy that address some of the concerns you raised in your >>> previous email. Here is a link - >>> http://sleepisoptional.wordpress.com/tag/smpolicy/ >>> Cheers, >>> Brian Peltola Gryth >>> 715 Logan street >>> Denver, CO 80203 >>> 303-748-5447 >>> twitter.com/briangryth<http://twitter.com/briangryth> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Chris Beer >>> <chris-beer@grapevine.net.au<mailto:chris-beer@grapevine.net.au>> wrote: >>> >>> Brian, SM Crew >>> >>> Tentative apologies in the event I am not there - I am currently >>> on call for the next 48 or so hours - have to be available for >>> Ministerial announcement which may need to be published live at >>> any time, so if I'm not there, you know I'm in at work. If the >>> call doesn't come - Skype is set up and ready to rock! :-) (Hats >>> off to Sandro for that suggestion that I, for the life of me, >>> never thought to explore!) >>> >>> As far as a discussion of deliverables and issues prehaps to focus >>> on with Best Practices, I have been promoting rigourous discussion >>> on Social Media in the last couple of weeks within a particularily >>> well used Gov 2.0 Australia forum. Interest and discussion seems >>> to have centered on the following: >>> >>> * Legal issues and risk management >>> * Community expectations (hard advice vs FYI) >>> * Where the traditional media/journalists fit in to the G2C model >>> * Responsibilities (inferred, assumed or otherwise) of the >>> Community when engaging online with Gov (as opposed to the >>> normal spin of responsibilities of Gov when engaging with >>> Community) >>> * Public Sector employees participating in media in an >>> official vs unofficial/personal capacity >>> * Attributes of social media - how does Gov make statement and >>> comment part of the official record when the arena is Public >>> and not owned by them. Persistence, verification, security etc >>> * Where SM commonly fits in to existing guidelines and issues >>> around development of SM guidelines and governance >>> * Training for PS employees involved in SM and; >>> * Who in the PS should engage in use, how and where. >>> >>> I am very much hoping to attend to discuss and expand on these >>> issues in the Australian context, and to hopefully see how other >>> participants see these issues. Are they important? Are they >>> something we can add to or expand on as a group. >>> >>> (4 1/2 hours in and still no call - 44 hours or so to go - fingers >>> crossed the Minister wants to relax this weekend.) >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> On 19/02/2010 3:55 AM, Brian Gryth wrote: >>> >>>> Good morning from Denver, >>>> The Social Media project group will have its teleconference >>>> tomorrow, Friday, February 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm (Eastern Time in >>>> US& Canada) or (20:00 GMT). >>>> A meeting agenda is available at >>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Socmed20100219 >>>> Teleconference information available at >>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Teleconferences. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Brian Gryth >>>> Coordinator, W3C e-Government IG Social Media Project >>>> >>> >>> >> >> --------------080900080501000505070605 >> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> >> <html> >> <head> >> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" >> http-equiv="Content-Type"> >> <title></title> >> </head> >> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> >> Hi Brian, Rachel<br> >> <br> >> Yeah - Worked today - Bit annoyed actually - really want to take Skype >> for a spin on the telecon :)<br> >> <br> >> I'm cc'ing all those who have shown a serious interest in our projects >> to date. Any of you, please forward this on to other members you know >> have a serious interest so they too can comment.<br> >> <br> >> I think the main issue around LD vs WebTech/DM/SM are that there is a >> solid core of the IG who are already working heavily in the LD field, >> either with other W3C working groups or with other organisations. It >> should be noted that they too are having numbers issues - no more than >> 6 people on their calls to date. LD is already well on its way as a >> technology within the Public Sector, and has been for years - every >> statistician has an interest, as does the various agencies that collect >> data and of course the research sector. LD is also very similiar in >> principle to the normal standards work that the W3C already does. There >> is a lot of work already underway, and the majority of the LD work from >> the telecons centres around linking these works and projects together. >> Now - none of this is a bad thing - it's just a different kettle of >> fish to our projects.<br> >> <br> >> The nature of WebTech/DM/SM is more murky. We are dealing with concepts >> and technology that is a) very very new on the most part (and I do >> include DM in that, in a Web 2.0 sense) and b) is heavily reliant on >> Better Practices AND policy, governance and legislation. And there is >> not a lot out there of either - most interested in these things around >> the place (not just the IG) seem to feel that they are working alone, >> and without precedence to aid them. This is also not a bad thing - it's >> just something we need to be aware of.<br> >> <br> >> I agree in that it does appear we need to move forward "by other >> means". I would like to suggest the following:<br> >> <br> >> a) Joint telecons for the 3 groups - this will increase numbers (and >> thus discussion) on the calls, and covers off any overlap between >> projects. Please note that I am not suggesting that we merge the groups >> as the LD crew have done. Just the telecons. I also think we firmly >> commit to fortnightly calls rather than weekly for the same reasons - >> it will increase numbers and discussion.<br> >> <br> >> b) Discussion boards - I know I've raised this before, but I really >> think that in this case its a good way to go - it allows people to post >> as they need and want to, and on a range of issues that can run >> parallel, without needing to commit a whole project - for instance, >> (using DM/LD as an example) we will always get a different group of >> people interested in issues around deidentifying data (a privacy >> concern) than would be interested in hardcore tech issues (OWL vs SKOS >> for instance). I will be setting up a board for the Web Tech project in >> the next few days (assuming by host gets off his arse and sets up my >> mysql server I've requested) - I will be happy to set others up for SM >> and DM if you would so wish.<br> >> <br> >> c) AGILE project/Incubator Group approach - rather than using our >> current development approach to these projects, we could easily use a >> Sprint approach - one week we focus on assembling resources on say, >> existing best practices for web publishing in Europe, the next we focus >> on PDF files, another week we focus on SM usage guidelines, the next we >> focus on how to make SM part of the public record (overlap with DM >> etc), etc etc And this could be done across all 3 of the projects - >> encouraging the synergies between the 3 as well as LD wherever there is >> overlap. At the moment we seem to take a "try to do it all at once >> approach" - but does that approach work in cases like these?<br> >> <br> >> d) Workflow: Set rough direction (Telecon) -> Intensely Discuss (via >> boards) -> Write Draft (wiki) -> Peer reveiw (discussion page >> wiki) -> Rinse -> Repeat until publishable work product is >> produced.<br> >> <br> >> I look forward to your replies. In the mean time I shall continue to >> troll for any and all resources in the .gov.* domains relating to Best >> Practices for the 3 projects.<br> >> <br> >> Cheers<br> >> <br> >> Chris<br> >> <br> >> PS: Will be out of town for a wedding from (US time) Tuesday through to >> Wednesday night as far as any telecons go, but will keep track of calls >> and attend as I can :)<br> >> <br> >> On 20/02/2010 8:20 AM, Brian Gryth wrote: >> <blockquote >> cite="mid:894ba28d1002191320w78bdf551rbacc1060e41c9465@mail.gmail.com" >> type="cite"> >> <div>Chris,</div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>Rachel and I missed you on the call. Unfornately, Rachel and I >> were the only people on the call. We had a good discussion. It is >> appearing that we are going to have to move forward with the group by >> other means. I still think the work of the group could be useful. >> However, the Linked Data projects seems to be stealing all of the >> thunder or man power. Of course, that means those of us that are >> interested in this effort may have to do some heavy lifting (at least >> initially). I am going to attempt to pull some stuff together over >> the >> weekend. I'll post it to the wiki and send out an e-mail to the list.</ >> div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>Thanks for devoting time on this project and I will be in touch.</div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>BTW, I posted a series of posts on my blog about developing a >> Social Media policy that address some of the concerns you raised in >> your previous email. Here is a link -<a moz-do-not-send="true" >> href="http://sleepisoptional.wordpress.com/tag/smpolicy/">http://sleepisopti >> onal.wordpress.com/tag/smpolicy/</a></div> >> <div> </div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>Cheers,<br clear="all"> >> Brian Peltola Gryth<br> >> 715 Logan street<br> >> Denver, CO 80203<br> >> 303-748-5447<br> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/briangryth">twitter.com/ >> briangryth</a><br> >> <br> >> <br> >> </div> >> <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Chris Beer<span >> dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" >> href="mailto:chris-beer@grapevine.net.au">chris-beer@grapevine.net.au</a>> >> ;</span> >> wrote:<br> >> <blockquote >> style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; >> padding-left: 1ex;" >> class="gmail_quote"> >> <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">Brian, SM Crew<br> >> <br> >> Tentative apologies in the event I am not there - I am currently on >> call for the next 48 or so hours - have to be available for Ministerial >> announcement which may need to be published live at any time, so if I'm >> not there, you know I'm in at work. If the call doesn't come - Skype is >> set up and ready to rock!<span><span>:-) </span></span>(Hats off >> to Sandro for that suggestion that I, for the life of me, never thought >> to explore!)<br> >> <br> >> As far as a discussion of deliverables and issues prehaps to focus on >> with Best Practices, I have been promoting rigourous discussion on >> Social Media in the last couple of weeks within a particularily well >> used Gov 2.0 Australia forum. Interest and discussion seems to have >> centered on the following:<br> >> <ul> >> <li>Legal issues and risk management</li> >> <li>Community expectations (hard advice vs FYI)</li> >> <li>Where the traditional media/journalists fit in to the G2C >> model</li> >> <li>Responsibilities (inferred, assumed or otherwise) of the >> Community when engaging online with Gov (as opposed to the normal spin >> of responsibilities of Gov when engaging with Community)</li> >> <li>Public Sector employees participating in media in an official >> vs unofficial/personal capacity</li> >> <li>Attributes of social media - how does Gov make statement and >> comment part of the official record when the arena is Public and not >> owned by them. Persistence, verification, security etc</li> >> <li>Where SM commonly fits in to existing guidelines and issues >> around development of SM guidelines and governance</li> >> <li>Training for PS employees involved in SM and;</li> >> <li>Who in the PS should engage in use, how and where.</li> >> </ul> >> I am very much hoping to attend to discuss and expand on these issues >> in the Australian context, and to hopefully see how other participants >> see these issues. Are they important? Are they something we can add to >> or expand on as a group.<br> >> <br> >> (4 1/2 hours in and still no call - 44 hours or so to go - fingers >> crossed the Minister wants to relax this weekend.)<br> >> <br> >> Cheers<br> >> <font color="#888888"><br> >> Chris</font> >> <div> >> <div class="h5"><br> >> <br> >> On 19/02/2010 3:55 AM, Brian Gryth wrote: >> <blockquote type="cite"> >> <div>Good morning from Denver,</div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>The Social Media project group will have its teleconference >> tomorrow, Friday, February 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm (Eastern Time in US >> & Canada) or (20:00 GMT).</div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>A meeting agenda is available at<a moz-do-not-send="true" >> href="http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Socmed20100219" >> target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Socmed20100219</a></div> >> <div> </div> >> <div>Teleconference information available at<a >> moz-do-not-send="true" >> href="http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Teleconferences" >> target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Teleconferences</a>.</di >> v> >> <div> </div> >> <div>Thanks,<br clear="all"> >> Brian Gryth</div> >> <div>Coordinator, W3C e-Government IG Social Media Proje >> ct </div> >> </blockquote> >> <br> >> </div> >> </div> >> </div> >> </blockquote> >> </div> >> <br> >> </blockquote> >> <br> >> </body> >> </html> >> >> --------------080900080501000505070605-- >> >
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 01:37:30 UTC