W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Tool for Planning eGov Implementations was Re: what do you mean, e-gov?

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1335823900.59826.YahooMailNeo@web112605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: "eGov IG \(Public\)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
The mysql database dump and the turtle file to launch the server: http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn-lex/rule.of.law.zip

I added one table to cross-reference Topics with their URN-LEX name and Subdivision URN-LEX name, if given.

Any comments much appreciated.


Enjoy,
Gannon



________________________________
 From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:54 AM
Subject: Tool for Planning eGov Implementations was Re: what do you mean, e-gov?
 

To plan eGov "bottom up", it's necessary to enumerate the {Rule of Law} "top down" because eventually you get to a hyperlink from one {Rule of Law} to another {Rule of Law}.  In addition, the Administrative Levels necessary to traverse to arrive at a small enough geographical region suitable for statistical measurements can include very many names (and linked data URI's).

I have a D2R server running locally with three linked tables:
lex => all URN-LEX notation with a LOC ID URI 

sublex => modular (Australia) geo subdivisions of {lex} with a LOC ID URI (screen shot Tasmania)

topics => other "verticals" (LCSH ID)

The LOC ID is one of Country, Geographic Area and Subject Heading ... in that order


screen shots here: http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn-lex/d2r.server.pdf

I will be posting the mysql database dump and the turtle file to launch the server later today.  If anyone at DERI or the LOC is listening, I sure would like your opinion before I  proceed.


--Gannon





________________________________
 From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
To: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: what do you mean, e-gov?
 
MAA

good to hear this from a 'yankee'  (presuming you are from the USA:-)

stakeholder analysis for eGov IG?

pdm

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Aisenberg, Michael A.
<maisenberg@mitre.org> wrote:
> Among a diverse group of very smart people from around the world in my experience there is often a risk of not appreciating how a seemingly trivial, to a U.S. Person, may be an "innovation" whose introduction in a different culture  (say, India, or Morocco) is truly transformative, while to a Siberian, a piece of software being adopted by the IRS which has dramatic consequences for all U.S. taxpayers may be of NO consequnce...Many of us it appears aren't sufficiently sensitive to/don't "get" those differences....cultural/experiential...
> M.A.A.  Sent from handheld
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
 From: Paola Di Maio [mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 09:55 AM
> To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
> Cc: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: what do you mean, e-gov?
>
> Thank you John
> for challenging the challenge :-)
>
> the  intended sense of the question was
>
>  'how do we know if the existing definition is adequate'  - ie  what
> verification/evalidation
> mechanisms doe we have in place to evaluate
> the quality and usefulness of the work of the IG
>
> and
>
> 'how was the definition achieved? how do we
 ensure it embeds and
> reflects the core values its community members uphold in matters of
> e-government, such as democracy and human rights?
>
> ---------------------------------------------note---
> No legal government can operate outside the principles of
>  democracy  and human rights, and the mediation of web technologies is
> designed to
> ensure, document and track how the governments operate within their
> legal/legitimate mandates
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> also
>
> are the members consulted as to how useful/valid this definition is to them?
>
> is there any evidence of any such consultation?
>
> does the IG have a process to ensure
> transparency/democracy/participation to the governance of the IG
> itself,
>
> is the IG transformative, in this sense?
>
 (ie, operate to achieve change, by practicing what it preaches) if
> not, should it be?
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is an amazingly rich and thoughtful discussion --- thanks!
>>
>> I would like to challenge the assertion that that W3C eGov definition
>> <http://www.w3.org/egov/> is inadequate. Like all W3C *G's (including
>> WG's and IG's) the W3C eGov IG includes as it's context "The World"
>> (which includes many forms of government) and "The Web" (although the
>> definition is broadened to include other modes of communication.
>>
>> As I understand it, the W3C eGov IG is about _doing government better
>> by
 decreasing the friction of citizen-citizen, citizen-government, and
>> government-government communications_. It is not a democracy advocacy
>> group, a human rights advocacy group, or an advocacy group for
>> particular manifestations of technologies and services. But since it
>> *is* a W3C group, it is naturally be a projection of the core values
>> of the W3C (in process as well as content) and inevitably this will
>> ave a democratic tone...but this is not the core purpose.
>>
>> Most W3C group charters are a balance between constraint (in order to
>> get work done) and extensibility (in order to be inclusive of new
>> views and rapid changes in technology). I think that the current W3C
>> eGov IG brief strikes this balance --- but am willing to be corrected
>> ;)
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at
 6:55 AM, Mick Phythian <mick.phythian@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think you've discovered the difficulties I had in finding a working
>>> definition of e-gov - hence the one I chose!
>>>
>>> Along with a definition of e-gov you'll then need a definition of democracy.
>>> Many of us are in representative democracies; what aspects of e-government
>>> require/lead to is direct democracy - I labelled this one of the 'antinomies
>>> of modern government'. True e-government and representative democracy aren't
>>> compatible...
>>>
>>> Mick http://greatemancipator.com
>>>
>>> On 27 April 2012 11:47, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Tomasz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > The W3C definition of EGOV is at the top of http://www.w3.org/egov/:
>>>> > "eGovernment is the use of the Web and other information technologies
>>>> > by governments to interact with the citizenry, between departments and
>>>> > divisions, and with other governments".
>>>>
>>>> Who wrote this definition? (should the provenance of the working
>>>> definition be stated?)
>>>>
>>>> How do we know that this definition is adequate for our purpose, and
>>>> represents the view of the list members?
>>>> (certainly it does not represent my view of e-Gov,
 and others
>>>> we have heard so far) :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that such a definition reinforces the structural gap
>>>> between
>>>> 'governement' and 'citizenry', rather than diminishing it.
>>>>
>>>> Many of us like to think,for example, that citizens *are* the
>>>> government, before they given a blue collar and transformed into fuel
>>>> for the bureaucratic, dysfunctional political machinery
>>>>
>>>> Given appropriate democratic practices and adoption of technologies
>>>> that support their participation, there should be no us and them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > This process could perhaps lead to the revision of the W3C
 definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh yes, please :-)
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PDM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > Tomasz
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> In the definition below, I am particularly interested in the word
>>>> >> *transformation.  *
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> The question could be formulated as:
>>>> >> how do bring transformation of traditional governance (from closed,
>>>> >> secretive, self serving, corruption prone self established elites) to
>>>> >>  e-governance (assuming we establish among the principles of
 self
>>>> >> governance: opennes, transparency, serving the common good, accountable
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> participative)
>>>> >
>>>> >> Since you have a Phd on the subject, could it be a good idea if you
>>>> >> started
>>>> >> an essay on the topic, and get others to chip in?
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> *Cheers*
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> *
>>>> >> *PDM
>>>> >> *
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Mick Phythian
>>>> >> <mick.phythian@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Having
 done a PhD on the area, the one I settled on was in a Canadian
>>>> >>> report by Roy (2006, p.x), he further refines ‘e-government’ as “The
>>>> >>> continuous innovation in the delivery of services, citizen
>>>> >>> participation,
>>>> >>> and governance through the transformation of external and internal
>>>> >>> relationships by the use of information  technology, especially the
>>>> >>> Internet”.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Roy, J. (2006). *E-Government in Canada* (Reprinted 2008 ed.). Ottawa,
>>>> >>> Canada: University of Ottawa.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best of a bad bunch!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Mick http://greatemancipator.com - still lurking
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 24 April 2012 20:09, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> For those who have been around the last twenty years or any
>>>> >>>> subset thereof, the question is not new. We each seem to
>>>> >>>> use the same word with different meanings (anyone else laughing
>>>> >>>> hysterically at this point?)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I was recently giving a talk and providing my own definition(s),
 and
>>>> >>>> would have liked
>>>> >>>> to point to the W3C definition of egov. But I could not remember
>>>> >>>> whether
>>>> >>>> we agreed on one, and where it can be accessed.  Admittedly I have
>>>> >>>> been
>>>> >>>> away a lot lately.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> For example,  for me egovernance applies to both
>>>> >>>> the governance of civil society institutions (presumably the
>>>> >>>> governance
>>>> >>>> democratic institutions that are ruled by first principles, and the
>>>> >>>> universal declaration of human rights, although in reality there may
>>>> >>>> not be
>>>>
 >>>> many governments that do so), as well as the governance of online
>>>> >>>> communities, whereby the information and decisions are mediated by
>>>> >>>> online
>>>> >>>> technologies, or something like that. But not sure if this has been
>>>> >>>> discussed
>>>> >>>> I do not remember any such discussions on list. Is it my memory
>>>> >>>> failing
>>>> >>>> me again?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Any threads/uri's someone could kindly repost if these questions have
>>>> >>>> already been asked?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>  if not, i would invite the IG Chairs to start off with some proposed
>>>> >>>>
 definitions, either on list or on wiki page possibly one for each
>>>> >>>> term in
>>>> >>>> our shared vocabulary, (wiki? url......), then  members (other than
>>>> >>>> pure
>>>> >>>> lurkers) could introduce themseles and get their active participation
>>>> >>>> in the
>>>> >>>> group going by entering their own definitions/variations, with
>>>> >>>> possibly a
>>>> >>>> link to their profile
>>>> >>>> so that we can start getting to know each other meaningfully?:-)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> sincerely
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> PDM
>>>>
 >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Mick Phythian PhD
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://greatemancipator.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mick Phythian PhD
>>>
>>> http://greatemancipator.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
>> Director, Web
 Science Operations
>> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
>> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
>> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
>>
>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 22:13:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 22:13:13 GMT