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

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