- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 12:01:56 -0500
- To: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <117b748c-0a6b-2008-5aab-28351b05364f@verizon.net>
Carl, the link you provided is generating a 404 error. Is this another instance of it: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XMLData-Reduced.htm? Rather than reinventing the wheel, might a SKOS <https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/> service suffice? https://inspire-reference.jrc.ec.europa.eu/vocabularies/tags/skos In any event, as I become aware of them and as time permits, I will continue rendering in StratML format the plans of those working on AI & KM-related objectives. It will be good if this group can apply the good practice of using an open, machine-readable data standard(s). BTW, the StratML vocabulary is available in a slightly modified version of SKOS, at http://stratml.us/#Glossary However, it has not been rigorously updated and maintained. The documentation in the schemas themselves is authoritative. Owen On 1/6/2020 9:04 AM, carl mattocks wrote: > > Agreed - the list of 'member approved' links-to-resources would be > labelled 'CURATED' > The resources identified would also be the source for definitions of > Data Elements and / or XML Elements that are in a separate 'ELEMENT > INVENTORY' ( initial thought is structured as XML-Data schema > https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/ ) - which in turn could > be referenced in TOPIC MAP , OWL / RDF , THESAURUS constructs. > > > > It was a pleasure to clarify > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 9:54 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com > <mailto:paoladimaio10@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Carl > thanks for suggesting this mechanism- > we could implement it by creating çurated resource list'' part of > the wiki which can be entered with a submission form and have > periodic votes, for example once a month ask members to vote on > the suggested new resources list (in or out) > > The problem would be that our member based has not been ver engaged > with the CG processes so far, how many resources do you expect > would the group be able to generate say in a year, and how many > votes do you envisage are necessary for a pass? Is this something > you would be able /interested to curate as part of you co chair role? > If you are available to implement this idea, and unless someone > has objects or suggestions for refinement of this process, I d say > go ahead > Thank you > PDM > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 11:32 PM carl mattocks > <carlmattocks@gmail.com <mailto:carlmattocks@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>>
Received on Monday, 6 January 2020 17:02:04 UTC