Re: U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan

Thank you Owen

I do like standards as well, they are neat and give a sense of order and
certainty

 at the same time, being a citizen of the world, I seek a global
perspective. :-)  The question is often: is a US standard good also for the
rest of the world?  Does it fit universal requirements?

OK to start from where we are, and from what have got (say the ISO you
mention) But we should keep in mind that what we have is a starting point
that needs to be validated, or evolved, to fit a broader spec.

I think here the point for us is avoiding to make country based
assumptions, and avoiding wanting to impose a single view of the world,
however pretty :-)

I am shocked at what I see, despite the www making us one world, we
are still culturally segregated and gliding over too many important issues

 For example, just emailed Norvig ccd Vinay Chaudry because he is a member
of this list, as well as a board member for AAAI JOURNAL where this great
paper is published:
https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI16/paper/download/12444/12195
asking whether this was a US centric paper, but he says he cannot remember

there is no dataset to verify these findings , and not even a mention of
whether the findings are based on a survey sample population  which I
assume is english speaking and probably US based.  In the rest of the
world, from Latam to Middle and far east, afaik, these findings may not
true, its hard to tell given the lack of mention

 There is an assumption (in the USA) that the US is the center of the
universe of discourse, and probably true also in other regions.

  As much as we all can identify to some extent with US standards, and we
like them, we need to make sure the scope and limitation are clearly stated
and hopefully address that

 a plurality of cultural and geographic perspectives, or the intention to
pursue such plurality, should be manifest in this CG work, whatever way you
want to reflect that

:-)

PDM


On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:25 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> Paola, yes, indeed, our focus should be on global goals.  However,
> standards and good practices need not be reinvented by international
> bureaucracies if they have already been specified by someone else -- not
> just nationally recognized SDOs but by anyone, anywhere on earth.
>
> It seems to me that publishing public information in open, standard,
> machine-readable formats having the attributes specified in ISO 15489-1 is
> such a good practice.  It would be nice to think IAC might be willing and
> able to foster adoption of that good practice by its stakeholders.  That is
> the prospect that prompts my interest in participating in a presentation at
> their conference.
>
> BTW, here in the U.S. official policy since at least 1998 has directed
> agencies to consider using internationally adopted voluntary consensus
> standards.  Here are the applicable sections of OMB Circular A-119
> <https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-119-1.pdf>
> :
>
> h. Does this policy establish a preference between domestic and
> international voluntary consensus standards?
> This policy does not establish a preference between domestic and
> international voluntary consensus standards. However, in the interests of
> promoting trade and implementing the provisions of international treaty
> agreements, your agency should consider international standards in
> procurement and regulatory applications.
>
> i. Should my agency give preference to performance standards?
> In using voluntary consensus standards, your agency should give preference
> to performance standards when such standards may reasonably be used in lieu
> of prescriptive standards.
>
> 7. What Is The Policy For Federal Participation In Voluntary Consensus
> Standards Bodies?
> Agencies must consult with voluntary consensus standards bodies, both
> domestic and international, and must participate with such bodies in the
> development of voluntary consensus standards when consultation and
> participation is in the public interest and is compatible with their
> missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources.
>
> In short, the problem is not the policy but, rather, the performance,
> i.e., the lack thereof in many instances.  What's needed is not more policy
> or new "strategies" but more accountability and better performance.
> Hopefully, the U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan will make a
> meaningful contribution toward that end, at least with respect to grant
> funding
> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_ea289a44-2e58-11ea-bd1a-70248cbabdf6>
> .
>
> Owen
>
>
> On 1/3/2020 8:02 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> Thank you Owen
> it will be great if we could align our work to some of these objectives,
> please keep an eye on that (my mind being very expanded at the moment)
> also, can we find alignment of our own work with these US based
> objectives, also with more global, less US centric strategies and goals.
> I am thinking UK EU, China and rest of the world as well
>
> pdm
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 3:35 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan for this year is now available
>> in StratML format at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#2020AP
>>
>> Action 8:
>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dbd82-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>AI
>> - Improve Data and Model Resources for AI Research and Development includes
>> direction to provide an updated inventory of technical schema formats.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if this group may have value to add in
>> support of that objective.  If so, the IAC conference
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZARdPoWeEZzld1iugl5hlaMh7aaYrJkD7SiEycXvdQ/edit>
>> in September might be a good venue in which to share it.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>