- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:28:18 +0100
- To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi all,
Daft minutes are at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-minutes
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]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
josema, chris, rachel (part), john, kevin (part)
Regrets
owen, martin, kjetil, rinke, ari, jeff
Chair
john
Scribe
josema, john
Contents
* [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
[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
standards?
... we could surface, what are standards that underpin web 2.0 sites
... want to see building of the business case for those at policy
level
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
technology
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
people
... 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
etc.
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
technology
chris: potentially restating business problem, then use case in that
context
... 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
delivery
... 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
computer
... 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
then
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]
[ADJOURNED]
[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