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

RE: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

From: Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:13:55 -0400
To: "'michail vafopoulos'" <vafopoulos@gmail.com>, "'Aisenberg, Michael A.'" <maisenberg@mitre.org>
Cc: <olyerickson@gmail.com>, <tj@iist.unu.edu>, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>, <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05d001cd515b$309c0ee0$91d42ca0$@cox.net>
Thanks! I loved this presentation:
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/pmod/pmod2012_submission_9.pdf

 

 

From: michail vafopoulos [mailto:vafopoulos@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:10 AM
To: Aisenberg, Michael A.
Cc: 'olyerickson@gmail.com'; 'tj@iist.unu.edu'; 'paola.dimaio@gmail.com';
'jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'paoladimaio10@googlemail.com';
'public-egov-ig@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

 

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 16:14:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 June 2012 16:14:44 GMT