AIKR egovernance task Knowledge Stewards .. was U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan

For the avoidance of doubt, as a W3C group with members located across the
world, AIKR CG is able to peruse ideas and notions that originate from any
country.
Given our focus on eGovernance, I encourage US (our members) to send links
to Knowledge content that could be Reference documents (normative or
otherwise), AND then  (as an egovernance task)  Knowledge Stewards   WE
(the membership) critique the content and vote on its disposition i.e. does
it /does it not  get added to the AIKR wiki.

thanks in advance

Carl Mattocks

It was a pleasure to clarify


On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:31 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Owen
>
> please feel free to pursue whatever action you see fit to explore the
> route that you are considering, and consult with whosoever.  (not
> forgetting to aligh with our CG goals)
>
> Let us know if you need input from us, or whatever outcome you come up
> with that may need discussion/decision/ We can always put whatever outcome
> down in our activities done list''
>
> Thank you!!
> PDM
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Paola, machine-readability
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document> is not a
>> U.S.-based standard.  It is a concept, i.e., a good practice.  Nor are ISO
>> 15489 or ISO 17469-1 U.S. standards.  They are international standards.  So
>> the only issue is why they are not being appropriately applied --
>> particularly by organizations like IAC.  To the degree there may be
>> obstacles to doing so, we should explore means of reducing, if not
>> eliminating them.  In the event that lack of awareness may be one of them,
>> it will be interesting to see if IAC is open to learning about them.
>>
>> In any event, the U.S. Federal Data Strategy Action Plan includes a
>> couple dozen references to metadata, including this one
>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dc80e-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>
>> regarding geospatial data:
>>
>> The Federal Government’s lead agencies for NGDA data assets will
>> identify, inventory, and publish the status and standards being used for
>> each of the NGDA data themes and content and services metadata, consistent
>> with *international standards* ...
>>
>> This year's planned actions related to AI
>> <http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_b19dbd82-2dd4-11ea-a6d4-d5cd0183ea00>
>> include:
>>
>> * Investigating barriers to access or quality limitations of Federal data
>> and models that impede AI R&D and testing. A Request for Information (RFI)
>> was issued as a Federal Register Notice by OMB inviting the public to
>> identify needs for additional access to, or improvements in the quality of,
>> Federal data and models that would improve the nation’s AI R&D and testing
>> efforts.
>>
>> * Addressing identified barriers by updating Federal data and source code
>> inventory guidance for agencies to utilize in enhancing the discovery and
>> usability of Federal data and models in AI R&D.
>>
>> Perhaps we should explore prospects for getting someone to brief our
>> group on those plans.  Of course, it would also be nice if the results were
>> reported in an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML so that
>> learning about them were not limited by the constraints of time and space.
>> See the performance indicators at
>> http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/2020APwStyle.xml#_66413a26-2dde-11ea-89b4-de7271babdf6
>> The RFI is targeted for completion next month.
>>
>> Owen
>> On 1/4/2020 9:59 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>