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

Re: More Talk of a a Federalized Web

From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <848970.67172.qm@web82403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
Cc: Submit to W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
The thing about Vocabulary Encoding Schemes, it seems to me, is that each 
governing agency, whether EPA of Health & Human Services or NASA, has its own 
Scheme, its own vocabulary; to streamline them in a way that allows for data to 
flow freely within its own unique DNS will enable a much larger, much richer 
picture of governance at work.  The "clouds" of information to emerge from such 
a configuration are unimaginable.
 
Michael A. Norton
 




________________________________
From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
To: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>; Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: Submit to W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 4:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: More Talk of a a Federalized Web


Chris has a point.  There are great, no merely good security advantages to using 
ccTLD's tied to jurisdiction.  But then, the combination of managers who saw 
cost efficiencies where there were none (I saved three characters.  NOW it's 
ready to release!) and people who named their programs "grep" (I was told by a 
PhD in Computer Science in 2007 that quoting attributes was make work.)  took 
it's inevitable toll.  Pick your favorite commercial URL and add .us to it and 
you'll find it doesn't work.  Pick a crook's URL and add .us to it and ... never 
mind you already did that.

I'm not totally unsympathetic though Mike.  When I talk about "Federalization" 
I'm talking about doing away with the need for ad hoc Vocabulary Encoding 
Schemes which do not translate - they are symbols for symbols.  The question for 
me is: what  rock is that domain tied to.  Inside the Law and Outside the Law is 
a binary choice.

--- On Fri, 11/5/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: More Talk of a a Federalized Web
>To: "Chris Beer" <chris@e-beer.net.au>
>Cc: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, "Submit to W3C Egov IG" 
><public-egov-ig@w3.org>
>Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 4:01 PM
>
>
>Good point, Chris.  But just because the web is an international machine of 
>mystery doesn't negate the benefits of having a google.nasa site AND a 
>google.esa site (the latter the Euro Space Agency) - there would be a plethora 
>of new TLD's in this scenario - in the hundreds...and all for great measure!
> 
>IMO :o)
> 
>Michael A. Norton
> 
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
>To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>; Submit to W3C Egov IG 
><public-egov-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 1:46:35 PM
>Subject: Re: More Talk of a a Federalized Web
>
>
>Federalised would be nice, except the web is international. A better start would 
>be forcing the use of .us for ALL US domains to level the playing field to the 
>standard as written.
>
>
>IMO :)
>
>Chris Beer (iPhone)
>
>On 06/11/2010, at 3:56, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>On a federalized web, I could go to sirius.fcc, bp.epa, caltech.hhs, 
>microsoft.law, and laidlaw.sec and check, respectively, this company's spectrum 
>purchasing history, that company's conservation efforts, this school's medical 
>record activity, that company's volume of legal data, and this company's public 
>financial statements, and vice versa, while each company's marketing efforts I 
>don't have to worry about, because I'm not at .com, I'm on the federal web! 
>> 
>>Michael A. Norton
>>  
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
 From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 5:33:47 PM
>>Subject: Re: What if ... A Federalized Web
>>
>>
>>Outside the US, nobody knows what "FCC" means though ...
>>
>>Wouldn't that be a problem ?  It would be nice to have a purl.org/usa/gov/xxx 
>>forwarding service though.  
>>
>>
>>--- On Wed, 11/3/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>>Subject: Re: What if ... A Federalized Web
>>>To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>>Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:21 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>operative word is "front man" - it would be interesting to be able to to 
>>>traverse URLs such as google.fcc, nbc.fcc, yahoo.fcc, fox.fcc, etc. while doing 
>>>the great service that FCC is supposed to provide.   SEO mavericks such as 
>>>Google itself could then genrate such lists as "Top 10 Most Active FCC 
>>>Companies" and likewise "Top 10 Most FCC Fined Companies" and Top 100's, etc.
>>> 
>>>Michael A. Norton
>>>  
>>
>>
>>
> 



      
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 00:51:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 6 November 2010 00:51:15 GMT