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

Ah.... elements inventory as in 'xml elements''. like a vocabulary for
egovernance?
now I gets it. Carl, we would need to define a set of criteria for the
inclusion/acceptance of the resources. I ll leave it to you to define this
process foward
P

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:14 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XMLData-Reduced.htm  may be blocked for some
> .. I get a ' not secure' warning (but is opens up)   .. there is an
> alternate https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/  which is
> considered 'draft'
>
> Agreed - SKOS service is a good match .. especially for describing 'link
> content'
> I very much agree that StratML  is essential for our eGovernance 'handbook'
>
> Carl
>
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>