RE: ISSUE-23 (improve-definitions): improve definitions by adding B2G, C2G and switch order [Group Note 1 -- General]

Kevin, per Jose's request, I'd suggest substituting for this text:

"Definitions
Description terms are used to highlight and describe the various types of
interaction points and relationships that governments have to their various
constituencies. A few of the major and known terms are below:

G2C: Government to Citizen: Governments providing Web based information and
services to their public constituencies. 
G2B: Government to Business: Governments providing Web based information and
services to companies and others in the private sector (Financial, Retail,
as examples) 
G2G: Government to Government: Connections and communications between,
state, local, regional, territories, Federal depending on Country and
political structure. 
And a newer term resulting from the demand for higher levels and
opportunities of participation and interaction is Citizen to Government or
C2G."

the following replacement:

"Types of Interactions
Types of interactions that occur with government agencies include:

Citizen-to-Government (C2G) - Citizens convey their needs and wishes to
government agencies.
Government-to-Citizen (G2C) - Government agencies provide information and
services requested or required by citizens.
Government-to-Business (G2B) - Government agencies provide information and
services requested or required by companies and other organizations.
Business-to-Government (B2G) - Companies and other organizations supply
information requested or required by government agencies for regulatory or
other purposes.
Government-to-Government (G2G) - Government agencies at all levels share
information required to carry out their missions, goals, and objectives, in
accord with applicable laws, regulations, and international agreements."

Needless to say, I believe such interactions should all eventually be
specified in XML schemas, such as the XSD for StratML, and citizens should
be able to convey their needs and wishes to .gov agencies in terms of their
own goals and objectives without being required to know anything about the
structure of government or government jargon.  However, I don't necessarily
expect to see that point acknowledged in our group note.

Hope this helps.  If you need anything further from me, just let me know.

Owen 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:16 PM
To: Owen Ambur
Cc: eGovernment Interest Group WG; Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com; Kevin Novak
Subject: Re: ISSUE-23 (improve-definitions): improve definitions by adding
B2G, C2G and switch order [Group Note 1 -- General]

Owen,

Created this one per our email exchange. I remember you cannot edit  
the doc directly (sorry about that) but if you can respond to this one  
with proposed replacement text, it'll be attached to the ISSUE and we  
could discuss and edit accordingly.

I do not oppose to make the suggested changes, not sure what others  
think. Copying Kevin, who edits that section.

-- Jose

ps: processing Anna's message next.


El 20/04/2009, a las 18:12, eGovernment Interest Group Issue Tracker  
escribió:
> ISSUE-23 (improve-definitions): improve definitions by adding B2G,  
> C2G and switch order [Group Note 1 -- General]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/23
>
> Raised by: Owen Ambur
> On product: Group Note 1 -- General
>
> I'm pleased to see reference to C2G at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note#definitions  However,  
> B2G
> should also be referenced, as businesses should not only be  
> empowered but
> also expected to provide in electronic form (preferably XML) the data
> required for governmental purposes (as authorized by law and  
> documented in
> strategic and performance plans).  As implied in Anna's message, I'd  
> also
> place C2G *before* the G2C "interaction" rather than as an after- 
> thought.
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 20:38:15 UTC