[minutes] eGov IG call, 17 Dec 2008

Hi all,

Daft minutes are at:

and as text at the end of the message. Please, send comments before my  
(CET) EOB tomorrow. I'm sending a separate message with a summary on  
the discussion about the Group Note.

-- Jose



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

17 Dec 2008

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-irc


           josema, chris, rachel (part), john, kevin (part)

           owen, martin, kjetil, rinke, ari, jeff


           josema, john


      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]agenda adjustments
          2. [5]outline of document
          3. [6]open actions
          4. [7]next meeting

agenda adjustments

    john: any?

    josema: reminding people of dates and location of 2nd F2F
    ... proposed 12-13 March at AIA in DC, USA
    ... please, send feedback

    chris: good for me

    rachel: good for me, hope I could find funding to go there

    john: please, let us know if we can help to justify the importance
    of the trip

outline of document


       [8] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note

    josema: we have outline, not spectacular yet, outline taken from
    relevant messages from mailing list, use cases and wiki
    ... difficult to categorise the issues, we have many different
    dimensions of view
    ... some conversation are out of scope for W3C as policy related.
    Aim to show how to use W3C standards in a good way
    ... every use case is relevant in several areas, then we repeat the
    dimensions problem
    ... example with transparency from john the other day - not a
    technical topic, so changed to open government data

    chris: whatabout social media - how to nail that from policy versus
    ... we could surface, what are standards that underpin web 2.0 sites
    ... want to see building of the business case for those at policy

    john: another relevant point is how government can make good use of
    this 2.0 stuff to do better decision making
    ... Sweden taking over EU Presidency, it's my understanding they
    have much interest on this
    ... endorses the point you are making, problem is not about

    chris: how does W3C look at social media issues?

    john: e.g. what if you are putting video on youtube?, then you have
    issue with content accessibility
    ... what about data portability?
    ... these issues have been discussed for years in W3C
    ... hence the workshop in Barcelona (Spain)
    ... depending on views of members, could be a basis for charter

    rachel: I'm having hard time separating policy from standards
    ... in the US, new government will make greater use of these tools
    ... maybe we should also consider the idea of what is doable and
    what is not?
    ... 2.0 is all about enabling, how to help government structure
    their data so that allow people
    ... to access that data to find the answers to their questions
    ... help people to help themselves

    john: agree, difficult to separate, very related
    ... but in terms of the Note, what do we want as headings?
    ... policy-like vs. more technology-like
    ... I can give example
    ... say US gov has to decide what information to keep long-term,
    what to destroy
    ... two public policy objectives that may be contradictory
    ... keeping as less as you can vs. keep as much as you can
    ... you can use technology to help you with any of those
    ... our hope is as a W3C Group, to start with technology and go up
    to the policy area
    ... eg. you can use this technology to fulfill this policy goal,
    this way

    chris: going through the draft, we should state this somewhere in
    the draft
    ... as early as possible in the document

    rachel: yes, sometimes we want to do this or that but it's not
    doable because of a given regulation

    chris: agree

    [john goes through areas in the draft]

    [also about perceived hierarchy]

    josema on [9]how to describe topics based]

       [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2008Dec/0043

    josema: the structure is based on personal experience talking to
    ... outreaching type documentation has been very useful in past from
    W3C point of view
    ... most people reading documentation won't necessarily have in
    depth understanding
    ... we also have lots of vocabulary issues - people using different
    language for same idea/concept
    ... documentation broader than developers, more project managers

    rachel:we need reference points - what things are and why

    chris: this is why we should take business case point of view

    josema: use use cases to highlight real projects using this or that

    chris: potentially restating business problem, then use case in that
    ... focus on the problems

    josema: on holidays from tomorrow - aim to have one or two sections
    finalised for group to see over them

    rachel: put open gov and engagement to the top

    chris: terminology is important, use terms that will attract people

    [rachel leaves]

    john: interesting thing for me is two hot topics prioritized
    ... engagement and open government data
    ... which does not mean there are not lot of people working on the
    other issues
    ... one selling point for OGD is our use of RDFa, that also helps
    solve some interoperability problems

    [jose explains back/front of Multi-Channel delivery]

    chris: better to use "access" than "delivery"

    john: I've learned something there, in the UK context we talk about
    ... we even have a Council named after that, working of the kind of
    issues jose mentioned
    ... the Delivery Council

    chris: maybe we need both there

    josema: we need textual description of all the topics
    ... do we prioritise the topics

    chris: Participation, Open Government Data, Interop, Long term,
    Auth, Multi-Channel
    ... if I had to prioritize

    john: I would agree with first three, probably then do:
    Multi-channel, Auth, Long term
    ... but can we wrap Auth something else? eg. Multi Channel?

    josema: I think it's big enough to stay and Martin is working on it
    (see [10]ACTION-15)

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/15

    chris: +1 to john's order

    josema: +1 to start with those

    chris: and try to come up with more user friendly terminology

    kevin: have several things drafted on paper, will work on the
    ... and deliver something in a week or so from today

    john: I will send something on the deadline or around it

    josema: it's difficult to write the doc without the use cases

    john: optimistic about setting up the deadline, hope more cases by

    chris: do we have anyone working on long term?
    ... I could write some on persistence

    trackbot, comment [11]ACTION-34 chris to write a high level

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/34

    <trackbot> ACTION-34 Document "Handle" use for THOMAS as use case
    for 2.Persistent URIs notes added

open actions

    [skipping this one]

next meeting

    [next meeting: 7 Jan; 14:00Z]


    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([13]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/12/17 16:16:55 $

      [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 19:28:59 UTC