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

Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

From: Brian D. Handspicker <bd@handspicker.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:36:07 -0400
Message-ID: <8a8fe6ce015c53b1d86720dfb5309f11.squirrel@webmail.handspicker.net>
To: "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, "Brand Niemann" <bniemann@cox.net>, "'John Erickson'" <olyerickson@gmail.com>, "'Tomasz Janowski'" <tj@iist.unu.edu>, "'Paola Di Maio'" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "'eGov IG (Public)'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
+1

bd


> Hi all--
>
> Just to echo what others have said, I feel strongly that we should be
> moving ahead with our discussions of the practical aspects of eGovernment,
> the successful implementations, and the lessons learned from successes and
> failures in eGovernment.
>
> If we want to reconsider definitions, we can do that as we progress, but
> to spend time re-doing that now would not be useful to the greatest number
> of our members.  As Tomasz noted, the group formed in 2008 did a good job
> of defining these at that time.
>
> Some of the things stated most clearly at the meetings in Brussels (and
> other recent meetings of the group and other related events):
>
>   1.  We need a directory of eGovernment activities and examples
>   2.  We need examples of tangible benefits and return on investment
>   3.  People are ready to share the practical implementations of
> eGovernment
>
> As a way to help move us forward, I've also posted the upcoming meeting
> times to the wiki: http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Main_Page  This will help
> to see that each time zone meeting occurs every 4 weeks (therefore giving
> us one group meeting every two weeks).
>
>   *    29 June 2012 Meeting: Agenda to discuss this roadmap (0800-0930 Los
> Angeles time:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGov+Interest+Group%3A+Western&iso=20120629T08&p1=137&ah=1&am=30)
>   *   9 July 2012 Meeting: Agenda to discuss this roadmap (0900-1030
> London time:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGov+Interest+Group%3A+Eastern&iso=20120709T16&p1=102&ah=1&am=30)
>   *   27 July 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   6 August 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
>   *   24 August 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   3 September 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
>   *   21 September 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   1 October 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
>   *   19 October 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   29 October 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
>   *   16 November 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   26 November 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
>   *   14 December 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>   *   24 December 2012 Meeting: NO MEETING
>   *   11 January 2013 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
>
> Please look over the roadmap and see if it makes sense and what you would
> add.
>
> --Jeanne
>
> **********************************************************
> Jeanne Holm
> Evangelist, Data.gov
> U.S. General Services Administration
> Cell: (818) 434-5037
> Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> **********************************************************
>
> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com<mailto:gannon_dick@yahoo.com>>
> Reply-To: Gannon Dick
> <gannon_dick@yahoo.com<mailto:gannon_dick@yahoo.com>>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:30:26 +0200
> To: Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net<mailto:bniemann@cox.net>>, 'John
> Erickson' <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>>, 'Tomasz
> Janowski' <tj@iist.unu.edu<mailto:tj@iist.unu.edu>>
> Cc: 'Paola Di Maio'
> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>, Jeanne Holm
> <Jeanne.M.Holm@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Jeanne.M.Holm@jpl.nasa.gov>>,
> "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>"
> <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>>,
> "'eGov IG (Public)'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap
>
> I can see both sides, but have to say I'm starting to cringe every time I
> hear the word 'innovation'.  The question for eGov should be: toward what
> goal does an innovation draw you ?  For data analysis there is a necessary
> federalization step in the algorithm.  It is laboratory preparation, not
> an experimental result.  Yes, measuring Colligative Properties is
> experimentally difficult away from the critical points (Brand et. al.).
> And, nothing is solved by labeling the average or Central Limit "a
> critical point" - "untethered" does not mean empire building to the
> exclusion of smaller existing bits of the empire (John et. al.).  The
> challenge is very subtle for eGov, and must be confronted head on:  A sui
> generis data base implies that no midpoints even exist for triangulation
> and all hyperlinks are direct, non-stop routes.  I would say, maybe,
> because it depends if you limit the data to a range of identifiers first
> or federalized the data first.  Federalization first leads to
> un-sustainability in innovation, which is why I cringe.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net<mailto:bniemann@cox.net>>
> To: 'John Erickson' <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>>;
> 'Tomasz Janowski' <tj@iist.unu.edu<mailto:tj@iist.unu.edu>>
> Cc: 'Paola Di Maio'
> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>; "'Holm, Jeanne M
> (1760)'" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>>;
> paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; 'eGov
> IG (Public)' <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 7:19 AM
> Subject: RE: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap
>
> John, Thank you for that perspective. At the meeting I attended this week:
> http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/Big_Data_and_the_Government_Ente
> rprise
>
> Dr. George Strawn who works for the President's Science advisor said we
> have
> gone from words like open government data, to cloud computing, to big
> data,
> but that if we do not start producing real results with government data
> for
> business and science, we will be on to something else next year.
>
> Robert Ames, senior VP for In-Q-Tel, that funds the most innovation
> technologies that work with big data, said he thinks next years word and
> conferences will be data science and data scientist.
>
> Dr. Chris Greer, NIST program director for cloud computing, etc., talked
> about modifying the Cloud Computing Roadmap for big data based on last
> week's workshop at NIST:
> http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/BIG_DATA_Workshop
>
> Brand
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Erickson
> [mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:03 AM
> To: Tomasz Janowski
> Cc: Paola Di Maio; Holm, Jeanne M (1760);
> paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; eGov
> IG (Public)
> 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<mailto: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<http://tw.rpi.edu/>>
> <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>> Twitter & Skype:
> olyerickson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Brian D. Handspicker
Managing Partner
PracticalMarkets, LLC
www.practicalmarkets.net

Email: bd@handspicker.net
Website: bd.handspicker.net
Weblog: bd.handspicker.net/blog
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bdhandspicker

Albany Regional Office:
1-413-652-5029
243 Union Street, Suite 209
North Adams, MA 01247 US

Boston Regional Office:
1-978-456-5129
215 Ayer Road, Suite 233
Harvard MA 01451 US

This is a private correspondence from Brian D. Handspicker. Some of my
messages are sent using mailing lists. If the "to" field in this message
is blank or displays "undisclosed recipients" I sent this messages using a
mailing list. CLICK HERE<mailto:bd@handspicker.net?subject=REMOVE> if you
wish to be removed from my mailing list.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 03:36:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 24 June 2012 03:36:36 GMT