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

Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

From: michail vafopoulos <vafopoulos@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:10:27 +0300
Cc: "'olyerickson@gmail.com'" <olyerickson@gmail.com>, "'tj@iist.unu.edu'" <tj@iist.unu.edu>, "'paola.dimaio@gmail.com'" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "'jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov'" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>, "'paoladimaio10@googlemail.com'" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "'public-egov-ig@w3.org'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F98894C9-54CE-4B79-A0C7-EF8181DA9DF5@gmail.com>
To: "Aisenberg, Michael A." <maisenberg@mitre.org>
not in a single file yet, but it can be found as separate files here http://www.w3.org/2012/06/pmod/agenda

best

michalis vafopoulos
adjunct professor
National Technical University of Athens
vafopoulos.org


Jun 23, 2012, 4:57 PM, ο/η Aisenberg, Michael A. έγγραψε:

> A few of us, with interest and potentially, value to add were NOT unfortunately in BRU....perhaps someone who was their can point to precis/proceedings ?
> Regards,
> Michael Aisenberg, Esq.
> MITRE
> M.A.A.  Sent from handheld
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Erickson [mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:02 AM
> 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 <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap
> 
> 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 14:14:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 June 2012 14:14:50 GMT