W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > March 2013

RE: Classification of open datasets...

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:36:12 -0500
To: "'Phil Archer'" <phila@w3.org>, "'Peter Krantz'" <peter@peterkrantz.se>
Cc: <euopendata@lists.okfn.org>, "'public-egov-ig'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <000a01ce1941$d2be2b50$783a81f0$@Ambur@verizon.net>
Phil, thanks for thinking of me but I wouldn't put StratML in the same
category as code lists.  

The core elements of the StratML standard include:  <Mission>, <Vision>,
<Value>s, <Goal>s, <Objective>s, <Stakeholder>s, and <Organization> (i.e.,
the organization compiling the plan).
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm#Part1 

StratML Part 2, Performance Plans and Reports, adds the concepts of
stakeholder <Role>s and <PerformanceIndicator>s.
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm#Part2 

Part 3 will specify additional elements to more fully address the data
requirements set forth for U.S. federal agencies in the GPRA Modernization
Act (GPRAMA).  http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/references/PL111-532StratML.htm &
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm#Part3 

Part 3 will also enable the use of taxonomies (&/or keywords) to categorize
goals, objectives, performance indicators, and stakeholders, and it may be
appropriate to use code lists for those taxonomies. StratML users,
applications, and services will be free to use whichever taxonomies they
choose.  Over time, standard practices may emerge as to which taxonomies are
preferred for particular purposes by specialized communities of practice.
However, machine-intelligence can also be applied to assist with the
cross-walks.

Although GPRAMA is a key focus for Part 3, we aim to specify all parts of
the StratML standard generically enough to be applicable not just to all
agencies at all levels of government, worldwide, but also to all
organizations.  While the content will be different, we believe the core
elements of strategic and performance plans and reports are (or should be)
common to all organizations of all types.

To the degree we may miss that mark, we will have failed to meet our
objective.  However, "extensible" is XML's first name, and if the standard
gains traction, we plan to factor additional enhancements into it in the
years ahead, based upon input and feedback from users.

BTW, the StratML glossary, which is in modified SKOS format, includes the
alternate terms (including English and some Russian and Farsi) identified
thus far for the StratML element names.  See, for example,
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/draft/StratMLGlossary.xml#Goal 

The schema and stylesheet for the glossary are available, respectively, at
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/draft/StratMLGlossary.xsd &
http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/draft/StratMLGlossary.xsl If anyone would like
to have a copy of the InfoPath form I use to maintain the content of the
StratML glossary, I'll be happy to share it (but InfoPath is required to use
it). 

Owen Ambur
Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
Co-Chair Emeritus, xml.gov CoP
Communications/Membership Director, FIRM
Former Project Manager, ET.gov
Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:33 AM
To: Peter Krantz
Cc: euopendata@lists.okfn.org; public-egov-ig
Subject: Re: Classification of open datasets...

Hi Peter,

You've kicked off a lot of discussion - did you get a satisfactory answer?

I've been thinking about a closely related topic recently - what controlled
vocabularies do people find most useful and how can we find out? In Europe,
in some circles, we think of Eurovoc, or AgroVoc - which are fine but may be
seen as very Euro-centric. Owen Ambur points (not
unnaturally) to what he sees in the StratML world which, so far, is largely
US-centric.

The NACE codes - that describe company activity - are based on the UN's ISIC
codes and it all gets turned into a country-specific set known as SIC codes
here in UK. What on Earth is a data publisher to do?

I don't think there is a single answer. Creating a global "everyone should
use this central list of enumerated terms" list is the way forward.
*However* it does seem entirely reasonable to me for a data consumer or
service operator to say "this is the data I understand, please use
controlled vocab lists A, B or C if you want me to understand you." And, in
similar vain maybe, something like: "you're free to use any of
skos:prefLabel, rdfs:label and dcterms:title but in *my* application I treat
them all the same."

WDYT?

Phil.




On 01/03/2013 09:32, Peter Krantz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Many countries are developing national portals with metadata about 
> open datasets from the public sector. To make datasets easier to find 
> and to lower the threshold for pan-european (or global) re-use it 
> would be great if classification of datasets followed a shared 
> taxonomy.
>
> There are many candidates that could be used, e.g. Eurovoc [1], NACE 
> [2]. I would be grateful for any pointers if there is work going on to 
> harmonize classification of datasets on a global or European level.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Krantz
> http://www.peterkrantz.com
> @peterkz_swe
>
> [1]: http://eurovoc.europa.eu/ - availabble as LOD
> [2]: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html
>
>


-- 

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 01:37:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 March 2013 01:37:12 GMT