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

Re: New Charter

From: Novak, Kevin <KevinNovak@aia.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:18:30 -0500
To: "chris@e-beer.net.au" <chris@e-beer.net.au>
CC: "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, W3C eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CBA35DD-D07B-42A3-B062-BAADC9B1307C@aia.org>
There is a balance we must find between both. They are each connected and enable the achievement the goals. One of the challenges we have had is one (lod) is more easily defined than the other (ed and outreach) given the broadness of the latter. 

Providing data however it is done is a large part of the eGov goals in informing and communicating to the public we can't though forget all the other pieces including the continued education of policy makers who need to see the business value of what is at times a significant investment.

Looking forward to more conversation from the group. 

Happy thanksgiving to you all. 

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, "chris@e-beer.net.au" <chris@e-beer.net.au> wrote:

> Hi all.
> 
>> Hi eGov,
>> 
>> first of all I don't see any benefit of including more and more CCs into
>> this thread.
>> Each of them has subsribed public-egov-ig@w3.org, so why then flood
>> their inboxes with duplicates?
> 
> +1
> 
>> 
>> Secondly, we are discussing the new charter. Why then change the subject
>> again and again?
> 
> +1
> 
>> 
>> Third, and most important:
>> why generate rivality between LOD folks and others (whome: simply
>> I-don't-like-LOD-folks? I did not really get the point so far, please
>> help me.)
>> 
>> Obviously we have two ends of the eGov chain.
>> 
>> On one end, some agencies (namely environmental)  have a legal
>> obligation to publish open data. Here we have no reason to discuss about
>> *why* they should do so, but only *how* this can be accomplished best.
>> 
>> On the other end, many agencies have to be convinced to publish open
>> data, and here of course the focus is on the "why" and not on the "how"
>> at first.
>> 
>> Once again: this is not competing but complementary.
>> As I have stated in an earlier posting, even talking about the "how"
>> Linked Data is not the only way to go.
>> 
>> So please, let us drop any kind of malspeaking and rivality.
>> If we cannnot how can we envision that the agencies will?
>> 
>> Have a nice chistmas ;-)
>> 
> 
> OK - so this is a re-post, but I'll put it in here so it's part of the
> thread.
> 
> "I am definitely interested in seeing the group rechartered - I strongly
> believe that it has an important role and fills a definite need that
> exists to promote the use of standards and standardized approaches and
> interoperability between government systems and services at all levels
> up to and including the International community.
> 
> I would like to see a move away from simple chat and discussion on
> topics and a move towards increased and extremely coordinated
> Education and Outreach for e-Government, both to governments and NFP's
> as well as other areas of the W3. Obviously we will be already strongly
> represented in the LOD WG when a charter evolves there - (one could say
> that the LOD and E&O could both be specific TF's of the e-Gov at the W3
> if we were more than simply an IG.), as well as in other areas at W3
> where active e-Gov IG members have involvement such as Sem Web,
> Accessibility etc.
> 
> I realize that generally the focus (and some of the reason why little
> consensus or movement forward happens) has been on the e-Governance of
> lead Western nations that would be considered to be relatively e-Gov
> ready - the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scandanavia and the
> EU. This seems to be a) because it is where our membership has been
> based and b) because it is what we know - it is our comfort zone.
> 
> I believe that the IG could contribute significantly to the uptake and
> adoption of standards that underpin e-Government in emerging nations,
> not only directly, but through supporting W3 and other like minded
> efforts such as the W3F. The IG could act not only as mentors in this
> regard, but assist in facilitating networking and connections between
> emerging e-Gov states and e-Gov ready states"
> 
> So anyway - in short - I think we are definitely seeing consensus here,
> and one that says to me that the IG will continue on, even if it's not a
> W3 activity. We all want a focus on a) Standards based government policy,
> b) Standards based government services and c) Standards based government
> transparency and information (aka LOD). I would add into that list (as it
> hasn't been mentioned) d) Standards based G2G/G2B/G2C engagement
> models/services (aka Gov 2.0). All  in no particular order mind you.
> 
> That's 4 main areas of focus, all with common drivers - Education,
> Outreach, Development.
> 
> Enough to keep us busy and give rise to some fine deliverables? (On the
> point of deliverables - I'm not sure it works to have them set in stone in
> the charter - the eGov landscape has/is changing too quickly, and we are
> responsive to other W3 activity in that regards. Better just to say we
> will produce some, and decide what they are as the need arises. IMO.)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chris
> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> --
>> Thomas Bandholtz, thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com, http://www.innoq.com
>> innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
>> Phone: +49 228 9288490 Mobile: +49 178 4049387 Fax: +49 228 9288491
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:22:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 November 2010 00:22:41 GMT