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

RE: mapping "open government" and "freedom of information" initiatives timeline

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 14:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <381514.20496.qm@web112604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: 'IG eGovIG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "J.H. Snider" <snider@isolon.org>
Cc: 'Daniel Dietrich' <daniel@so36.net>
--- On Fri, 5/7/10, J.H. Snider <snider@isolon.org> wrote:
I would encourage you to create three separate timelines: one each for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  In any case, I would encourage you to clarify that what you mean below by an "open government" timeline is in fact an executive branch open government timeline.
====
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-0066+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

This (just released) Report seems to cover the prospective Policy for all branches, just not in the US :)

=====
 
You might also want to clarify what constitutes an innovation worthy of including on this timeline.  Currently, the timeline covers a mix of government and advocacy organizations.  My impression is that you’ve defined innovation in political rather than intellectual or public policy terms.  This, of course, is exactly how political actors, their funders, and the press usually define innovation.  
--AND--
6/10/2009 "Sir Tim Berners-Lee to lead a panel ... best use the internet to make ****non-personal**** public data as widely available as possible."
-----
My question to the IG is: How does this square with the use of FOAF as an existing W3C Recommendation for use in Government work ?  To use the DCAT Vocabulary under preparation as an example ... doesn't the use of FOAF (extending to contact information) in an "Official" meta data function, that is, the designation of Official Roles, Curators etc. undermine the authority from whence the dataset ?

I agree with XML vocabulary re-use in principle, but I wonder if this case might come back to haunt us in a very big way. Government Communications come from Officials, not "Friends".

I personally, so to speak, see no harm in a DCAT Vocabulary Element having no semantic relation to common web use.  It might even improve the efficiency of Agents.  Just my 2 cents.
===== 
 
Thanks for putting together this useful timeline.
=====
+1
=====
 
--Gannon


      
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 21:33:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 May 2010 21:33:49 GMT