W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2011

Re: follow on notes from this morning

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:36:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMXe=Sob9RNMZZb=gZq_+HomNqctURiUwhUBfo1PbdmfL1Zmxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Bernadette!

Thank you -  Glad the points are useful, when I get some good thoughts I
should jot them down and share them before I forget (the flip side of
having an open mind is that thoughts come and go freely)

I am a systems intelligence analyst and scientist, researcher and lecturer,
 loosely affiliated with the University of Strathclyde  in the UK for the
past 3 years (doing a Phd), also work as expert for EC/ REA for some years
and publish operational research analysis for Cutter.com, where I  publish
short monographies about the internet of things (which in my work I call
networks of things and people) and open innovation, data models, etcetera.

Two of my recent independent initiatives are istcs.org, and
openaccessmonitor.org -  otherwise happlily unaffiliated...

I have been hanging around W3C lists for some time, have met  a few members
in person too here and there
I contributed to the EIIF Incubator a couple of years ago which I think its
still waiting to happen as proper WG http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/

In fact a couple more after thoughts I wanted to contribute yesterday, just
for the record/further discussion

-  dysfunctional  (uninformed) choices will inevitably result in open
systems that don't work and cost a lot of money, and then politics can
manage to turn the whole open movement around as a bad idea, kind of utopia
that would never work. I can see this already happening and the greatest
current risk,  as per discussion with OlyErickson yesterday, that hopefully
he will bring up in discussions today

- just came back from Berlin, where I attended the opening of the new
research institute, apparently the first sponsored by Google

The event itself was nothing too special, but some great ideas and thrust
for change and people coming together to make a difference was exciting.
Haven't done a write up yet because I am in the middle of submissions,
however I started some interesting  conversations

For example Prof Pernice specialises in constitution. I would like to learn
more about the EC constitution which he says we have (the treaty) but I
dont think its a constitution as such, we need to have a better chat about
that some time. More relevant to this group, we started thinking about  the
cyberconstitution, a constitution for cyberspace and if there is going to
be any such thing at any point in the future, this could be the right forum
to discuss it, would like to contribute the idea for future development

I hope to have some free time in the new year to develop some of these
plans, (if the world hasnt ended by then)
Let me know how can I help

Look forward to the plan of work, and meeting in person some other time


On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com
> wrote:

> Great input Paola, thank you for composing those cogent, insights and
> ideas.
> May I ask what organization you are affiliated with?  Are you part of a
> government authority?  Do you participate in any other W3C working groups
> or IGs?
> Nice meeting you & we look forward to your continued insights / feedback.
>  I too enjoyed today's meeting discussion as these efforts continue to gain
> momentum and are clearly important to addressing many of the world's
> pressing problems in the 21st Century.
> Cheers,
> Bernadette Hyland
> 3 Round Stones, Inc.
> Linked Data Specialists
> Direct.  +1-571-331-3758
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> Greetings all
> it was good to participate remotely in the meeting today and meeting you
> all
> May not be able to join afternoon or tomorrow, so just a few thoughts for
> the table, please  consider and pass on as you see fit
> - great that participation to this WG is open to the public, so that this
> forum
> may constitute itself as *super partes* public advisory, or even authority
> - anyone who interacts with governments knows the score: undecided
> bunch,turning around
> at every electoral wind change, in desperate need of advice, but don't
> trust anyone , end up
> prey of unscrupulous ineffective consultants hired via obscure supply
> chains etc
> - if the work of this group is professional enough, could become important
> technical expert
> impartial voice to inform policy makers
> - no data is useless, other than poorly structured a inadequately modelled
> data, from which no useful insights can be gathered
> - if it's true that publishing proactively would reduce the risk of FOI
> bottlenecks, then it should be mandated by legislation. I have some
> experience of FOI requests in the UK, and it is obvious, as I was saying on
> IRC, that the system is currently designed to trickle information. It is
> not cost effective to deal with requests one by one, since requests cannot
> be scaled up economically
> and sustainably
> - to scale up information publication sustainably, organisations should
> make all the data (suitably anonymised=masked) available by default, that
> means transparent databases, with person data and other sensitive fields
> hidden from public view. Also, all transactions, and discussions and
> decisions pertaining to the transactions supported by provenance data.
> - the public should be able to interact with the data not only by querying
> it meaningfully, but also
> by annotating it, exporting to mesh it etc, and providing input into it
> - for data to be queried economically, it must be structured properly this
> fundamentally means have it organised in meaningful classes/categories. of
> course even unstructured data can be parsed and tagged, but thats an added
> cost. Governments should be supported in the effort of modelling knowledge
> sharing schemas to guide the design of their dbases and IT systems so that
> its querying and manipulation can be done with least possible cost. economy
>  and financial considerations (costs) will impact the long term viability
> of the open data movement with all the
> possible consequences
> - we should identify  and study good examples of organisations that
> publish proactive data and by so doing reduce FOI admin costs, write up
> good practice to make the case, then take things from there
> Keep up the good work-
> California sounds a good place to be!
> Til next
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 16:20:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:46 UTC