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

Re: mapping the conceptual space (was Restarting W3C eGov)

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1340386586.38015.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
Cc: "eGov IG \(Public\)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Yes, lots of mapping to do.

About Locations
============

The success criterion for the search of a Class (as a URI) representing a territorial subdivision is not Zero or more names, it's One or more names.  A Class with exactly Zero members is a forward-looking illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.  The meaning of the table is something like ... If you are an eGov providing a service to your part of Spain, then the Service Providers' coverage map must at minimum include these other places.  Redundancy is fine, but exclusion of 'inconvenient markets' is not acceptable in an eGov context.  Tenerife needs a fresh water supply and other public services just as Barcelona.  This is a fundamental difference from the Private Sector where the "coverage map" is drawn as {Barcelona} + {everywhere else}.   It boils down to two rules 1) don't make up Classes with Zero members and 2) don't group existing Classes - they are all islands in a federal system. Counties in some US States
 http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/cctld/maps.pdf
I believe this conceptual blind spot came about when Alexander the Great wandered into India and said "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you".  May have been earlier.

About Language
============
The US Library of Congress is the ISO Language maintainer.  Apparently they think I read directions.  There are two distinct Code Classes, Terminology (2 character) and Bibliographic (three character).  These are not interchangeable from an eGov perspective.  For example the main web site for Canada is bilingual (english and french).  Only Quebec is french speaking, the other Provinces and Territories are english speaking.  If you "create" a french speaking Alberta then both Quebec and Alberta lose specificity, but something even stranger happens ... suddenly half of Saint Martin in the Caribbean has a relation to Canada and Canada has a relation to the Netherlands (the other half- Sint Maarten).  Point is, the inherited Interlingua is of marginal value at the top of the tree and declining value further down.  Although I only listed the inherited Interlingua, each place has a similar Bibliograph property list which can be fine tuned to local
 sensibilities (eg Castilian or Catalan instead of a generic "Spanish") if desired or necessary.  Even more mapping to do :o)  OTOH, this is mapping you do not want the EU or Google to be doing.

--Gannon  


________________________________
 From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> 
Cc: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:29 AM
Subject: mapping the conceptual space (was Restarting W3C eGov)
 
Gannon
thank you

glad you appreciate the problem, and surely there are many more layers
of complexity that would benefit from being identified, so that we can
start looking at each issue we tackle with a sense of perspective of
eGov  as whole.

The local dimension is important because thats where everything happen
'de facto'.  I have been mapping the gap between what happens at local
level (and what information becomes publicly available about it) in
various regions vs what is reported about the local level at global
level or the corresponding authority, and often there are different
stories....(will get back to valerie on separate email

It very much depends on what one is looking at, what method is being
used, what datasets are used, what words and concepts are used  etc.

Lots to map!

I look at the table you kindly populated here (thank you btw)
http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/cctld/psp/find-es.xhtml

and wonder what I should do with it - I mean, how to use it?
:-)

I observer from example, that from initial visual inspection, it looks
like all the colums have exactly the same values , except for 'Named'.
  relationally speaking, this table contains redundant data, but not
sure
how you plan to use it.

Or maybe we should expect the values in the respective columns to grow
and develop into a different uri for each?

also, the interlingua colum seems to contain a mapping between two
vocabs,en and sp is that so?

but in reality, the vocabulary mapping challenge is beyond straight
translation from language a to language b
perhaps, this colump contains a pointer to possible future ad hoc
vocabularies and conceptual mappings

also, from what i observe, no single data set actually reflects
'reality'  it would be good to include pointers also to non
governmental data sets, where available, for example independent
research, surveys carried out by the citizens (working on that as we
speak) and other types of evidence that may enrich, and sometimes even
contradict, the data in official datas

lots of layers of complexity that could be mapped before crunching datasets

best



Monalisa :-)










On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeanne:  caffeine defficiency, sorry ... you mean today in an hours or so ?
>
> Paola: Where the "locals" fit in eGov is indeed a problem because they use
> identical nomenclature of existing Federal Governments but are "Domain
> Sovereigns".  So, I came up with the concept of Public and Private Spaces to
> deal with the URI search schemes - always done on Public Spaces.  Somebody
> maintains (public) Cultural Heritage sites and  those islands in the
> commercial landscape should not be ignored.  The Top Level Domain
> organizations do not imply governance: there is no google.eu nor is there an
> eu.google.  In this scheme, organizations of global reach are all the sum (a
> list) of a group of "Domain Sovereigns".  Regards language, I list an
> "Interlingua" list of display languages available on the eGov website.  This
> is different from the bibliograph, a list of bibliographic languages used
> for legislation etc.
> I added Spain for you.  The last table on the page should be of interest.
> There is a link given for most countries of the world.
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/cctld/psp/
>
> --Gannon
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> To: "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>
> Cc: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:42 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap
>
> Jane and all
>
> additional thought:
>
> I presume the work being done here is intended to be of global reach,
> ie,applicable in principle to any country
>
> Having studied how egov knowledge domain is developing worldwide (the
> scope of W3C), I notice two easily identifiable poles:
>
> 1. local jurisdictions/legislation .  national /regional boundaries
> seem to shape what is happening in egov
> for example, EU vs USA etc. But there are subregions, EU is not an
> even landscape, and presume the USA is not either. From a research
> viewpoint, may be interesting to map these jurisdictions.I am
> currently in Spain and the public administration I have spoken so far
> have never heard of eGovernment.. I wonder what is happening in other
> parts of the world.
>
> 2. language/information channels -  the majority of work in PA is done
> in the local language, there seems to be a lot of asymmetry between
> the lexical /conceptual heritage
> in egov knowlege domain, depending i what language one is working,
> also different knowledge sets.
> A suggestion here may be that an egov shared vocab if adopted, should
> be translated also in local languages, therefore, would be nice to
> have local representatives from each jurisdiction participate in this
> WG
>
> cheers
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dear Jeanne
>>
>> thanks for the update
>>
>> good to see a plan ahead, I ll aim to contribute when possible to this
>> interesting work
>>
>> Skimmed through your mail and links, Just a couple of points:
>>>
>>> First, we will be resuming the meetings for the W3C eGov Interest Group.
>>> Based on your responses to the survey, we will have a meeting every two
>>> weeks, with differing times to best reach your time zones:
>>
>> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?
>>
>>
>>> We have published the draft roadmap document to the wiki
>>> at http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki. We welcome your comments and
>>> suggestions.
>>
>> 1. the link to definition, does not redirect to a definition , as far
>> as I can see at my end
>> (but good that there is a plan to evaluate the definition)
>>
>> 2. Any meaningful discussion, for example to address mechanics and
>> value proposition
>> is constrained (ontologically) by the definitions adopted, therefore I
>> must insist on the suggestion that we need to agree with a definition
>> first, and the definition should be
>> 'valid'  and functional to the purpose of e-government in the true sense.
>>
>> 3. define some general vocabulary. Again, this is a recurring thing,
>> but the terminology/concepts that we adopt are likely to shape
>> discourse. for example, not just the definition of egov.
>>
>> For example, I do not object to the word  'citizenry' , but I wonder
>> if we all use it in the same way. In the light of
>> modern and democratic constitutions that eGov emanates from (from what
>> I understand)  citizens are sovereign , therefore citizenry can be a
>> synonym of sovereignty Is this what is intended as 'citizenry' in the
>> charter
>>
>>
>> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
>> soliciting as feedback,
>>
>> Thank you, best
>>
>> PDM
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 17:36:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 17:36:57 GMT