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

Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:02:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8ToL2ygp5bSWBoeT8OyntS-hHDjgW6VO7OxC_jACBfDCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu>
Cc: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>, paoladimaio10@googlemail.com, "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Many of the participants in the new, fresh W3C eGov discussion will
have been at this week's events in Brussels, including "Semantic
Interoperability" <http://bit.ly/KEGpQr>, "Using Open Data"
<http://bit.ly/yN8Exb> and "Digital Agenda Assembly"
<http://bit.ly/L37Ksa>. Although I could only participate in the
second, I must say I did not hear any calls to stop the meeting and
define terms --- there seems to be a consensus in the room of what is
meant by e-government.

Maybe that's because the participants are so refreshing engaged,
thinking about practical ways to use government open data to reach out
to citizens, to implement evidence-based policy making, and other
innovations in participatory government. We are living in exciting
times, with enormous opportunities to affect change in the world!

My point is, I hope we spend time in eGov talking about these sorts of
innovations and less about definitions...

John

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> wrote:
> Dear Paola,
>
> Many thanks for your contribution.
>
>> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?
>
> The survey of the eGov Meetings times - the first news on
> http://www.w3.org/egov/. The eGov Atlantic Meeting Times poll is
> available at http://www.doodle.com/getnrihx2xsibu2y and the Eurasian
> pool at http://www.doodle.com/crt6v4su4gums7sk.
>
>> 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)
>
> You are right, the definition has gone down the
> http://www.w3.org/egov/ page; we are correcting this.
>
>> 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.
>
> Your view is noted with thanks. Indeed, we already had a rich exchange
> of ideas about the nature and definition of e-government, beyond the
> current definition adopted by W3C; which, by the way, facilitated
> meaningful discussions of this group since May 2008. The revision of
> this definition may be indeed needed, considering new trends in public
> sector technology and its larger socio-economic impact since 2008.
>
> But, in my view, this revision should not be a precondition to our
> continuing discussion, on the grounds of the current definition and
> understanding of e-government by W3C, about the mechanics, value
> proposition and localization of e-government. Without considering
> these applied areas, I think we will be able to continue conceptual
> and terminological discussions for quite a long time, but not conclude
> them. The roadmap should help us gradually adopt and then elaborate
> (even formalize ontologically) the new understanding and definition of
> e-government to address the emerging needs, opportunities and
> challenges facing the public sector and its use of the web.
>
>> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
>> soliciting as feedback,
>
> Absolutely. Your feedback is always appreciated!
>
> Many regards,
>
> Tomasz
>
>> 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
>
>



-- 
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 Saturday, 23 June 2012 12:02:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 June 2012 12:03:00 GMT