- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:30:52 -0400
- To: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
It would be good if we could not only identify: a) those members of our group who are willing and able to take the lead on each objective that we specify but also b) those external stakeholders who we hope will benefit from our outputs. With respect to the latter folks, it would be good if we could reach an understanding with them about giving us feedback, first, on the quality and validity of our objectives and, second, on the utility of our outputs (i.e., how they are able to use them to support achievement of their objectives). With respect helping to establish the logical connections, I agree that is a logical role for us. Enabling the identification of stakeholders and the discovery of shared objectives are among the purposes of the emerging StratML standard: http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#DefinitionPurposes For the U.S. federal government, the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Technical Reference Model (TRM) was supposed to link technical specifications to the .gov "services" (Service Component Reference Model, SRM) and "business" (Business Reference Model, BRM). However, the CIOs seem to think that dealing with all of the relevant technical specifications is too complex and difficult, which is tantamount to conceding defeat on the interoperability front by agreeing to continue wasting the taxpayers' money on proprietary stovepipe systems. The FEA TRM, SRM, and BRM are available in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO If agency Exhibit 300's were published in readily shareable format (i.e., in conformance with the XSD for Exhibit 300), it would be pretty easy to make the TRM, SRM, and BRM mappings readily searchable, discoverable, and linkable. See, for example: http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/capitalplanning/exhibit300/ (SRM & TRM mappings are in Enterprise Architecture sections 4 & 5) http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/gc_1202416321962.shtm (SRM & TRM mappings not included.) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/214237main_Redacted%20BY09%20NASA%20Data%20Center%20 Exhibit% (SRM mapping begins on PDF p. 9. FEA Performance Reference Model (PRM) mapping begins at bottom of PDF p. 3) http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/foiadocs/by096.pdf (PRM PDF p. 7, SRM PDF p. 12, TRM PDF p. 13) http://www.ustreas.gov/exhibit300/2008/Fiscal-Management-09Redacted.pdf (PRM p. 4, SRM & TRM p. 6) http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/116155.pdf (PRM p. 3, SRM p. 11, TRM p. 16) http://www.ed.gov/exhibit300/fy2010/by10edm.html - Dept. of Ed's enterprise data management exhibit (PRM - Section D, SRM & TRM - Section F) Since agencies are required to submit their Exhibit 300s to OMB in XML format, it is unfortunate they are not also making them available on their Web sites in that format. It would be good if the eGov IG could recommend that they be made available in valid XML format through the Data.gov site -- so that others can help draw the logical connections among technical specifications, software service components, and business requirements (goals and objectives). Owen -----Original Message----- From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:31 PM To: eGov IG Cc: John Sheridan Subject: task forces -- Re: first rough draft of 2nd charter We need to seriously think about the connector and comm/outreach piece and if we should spend most/all of the time at this. Example: should "OGD patterns" happen within the IG as a TF or should the IG act as connector to a CG with mixed Membership that would develop the most technical stuff? The second focus area or task force also concerns me. "Web Development" is to broad. I think that OGD is fine but I asked this question before: where's the citizen in this citizen-centric government? Data.gov is not for citizens. They need some other way to access information. We might want to focus on front end and visualization stuff on TF2 but if so, we should be very careful how we frame this to do it more closely and narrowly. John and I discussed at our meeting on Wed that one option might be to take the "interoperability" aspects and associate them with OGD; leaving something focussed on "providing public services using the web" (i.e. we have an "enable" taskforce based on OGD, and a "provide" taskforce looking at the practical aspects of using the web to deliver online services and information from government. I've been recently reminded that W3C only covers a small piece of the visualization space and that much in this area is still R&D and outside W3C scope. We might want to catalog the applicable W3C technologies and just work on those (eg. (X)HTML, CSS, Webapps, Mobile, Usability, SVG...) and add very closely related bits (eg: usability), maybe this guide, recently released by UK COI could help frame discussion? -- http://www.coi.gov.uk/improvingwebsites/ I'm also sure Rachel and the US Federal Web Managers Coucil could help us with the requirements for this. -- Jose El 14/06/2009, a las 0:54, Jose M. Alonso escribió: > Sharron, I think that mission was fine for Charter 1 but needs to be > improved for charter 2. What about something along these lines: > "The mission of the eGovernment Interest Group, part of the > eGovernment Activity, is to help bridge the government policy and > technology communities in order to help them understand how to > better use the Web to achieve their public policy goals" > > Although I'm missing here the bits of my previous message on the IG > being a connector and mention of other actors (activists, > contractors...), but since we have an editorial board now, I'm sure > they could find the right wording :) > > Owen, agree with you on the stakeholders point. We probably need to > hear from group members what they are willing to do, what of the > proposed work dovetails with their day-to-day priorities and needs > and what they would be prepared to contribute to. > > -- Jose > > > -------- > El 09/06/2009, a las 17:23, Owen Ambur escribió: > On first glance at the draft, I'd have been inclined to say that: > > > > a) it generally looks pretty good, and > > b) that I am pleased to see that it outlines *measurable* > objectives, but > > c) that the key will be to identify stakeholders of the performer > type to > accept the lead roles for achieving each objective, and > > d) I look forward to rendering it in StratML format. > > > > However, on second glance, I agree with the thrust of Sharron's > comments. I > look forward to seeing her specific editorial suggestions and to > offering > some of my own. I also look forward to learning who is willing and > able to > volunteer to serve as the lead performer for each objective in the > plan. > > > > Owen > > > > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org > ] > On Behalf Of Sharron Rush > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:35 AM > To: eGov IG > Subject: RE: first rough draft of 2nd charter > > > > > Hello all, > > My general comments about the charter draft can be summarized in two > points. > You will not be surprised to know that I strongly believe this > document > needs: > > 1. shorter sentences > 2. clear concise statement of mission and goals > > The document we delivered under the first charter was opaque and > very hard > to follow and/or make sense of. I have shared the "Improving > Government..." > doc far and wide and have yet to get anyone who is not part of the > W3C - not > one person - to read the whole thing. They get bogged down in > jargon and > circular arguments. > > If we are serious about having a global impact, we must dedicate > ourselves > to modeling the kind of communications we encourage from > governments. To me > that means clarity above all. Open language - by which I mean > statements > that are focused, pointed and as jargon-free as possible - is every > bit as > important as open data. In this case it really is important that we > "talk > the talk" of open communications that are understandable to all > citizens. > And the bonus is that we will think more clearly as a result. > > Here are examples of mission statements from other groups: > - The mission of the Protocols and Formats Working Group is to > increase the > support for accessibility in Web specifications. > - The mission of the HTML Working Group is to continue the evolution > of HTML > (including classic HTML and XML syntaxes). > - The mission of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working > Group is > to develop guidelines to make Web content accessible for people with > disabilities. > - The mission of the Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences > Interest > Group, is to develop, advocate for, and support the use of Semantic > Web > technologies for life science, translational medicine, and health > care. > > Here is ours: > The mission of the eGovernment Interest Group is to explore how to > improve > access to government through better use of the Web and achieve better > government transparency using open Web standards at any government > level > (local, state, national and multi-national). > > There are too many subclauses, in my opinion and the entire > statement is far > too qualified. Is our ultimate goal - our mission - really only to > "explore > how to improve" these things? and do we have a dual mission...we > also want > to achieve "better...transparency"? Are we assuming that > transparency is > in place and we only need to make it "better"? My preference would > be to > express these two things in one unified mission statement. And do > we not at > some point want to develop recommendations, best practices, > educational > materials, shared models, etc? > > The mission statement is only the most obvious place where clarity is > needed. I know that many will think that I am harping on the same > old point > about language, and I am sorry to be so tedious. But we ignored the > need > for clarity in the "Improving Gov..." document and I do not think we > want to > go forward without making a strong and serious commitment to plain > language > as a principle. I also think that one of our first goals must be to > rewrite > the first document with that principle in mind. > > In 2007, I worked with a group of government, academic and technology > advocates to develop a ten point statement of principles known as the > "Manifesto on Usability and Accessibility for Mexican Government > Websites" > Read it here http://www.uaweb.org.mx/en/documents/manifesto for an > example > of how we might model our approach to promoting the use of the web > as a tool > to support more truly democratic and open government processes. > > Thanks for your consideration, > Sharron > > > > At 07:43 PM 6/8/2009, Novak, Kevin wrote: > > > > All, > > As Jose mentioned, please try to take a look at the draft tomorrow > (Tuesday) > and share your thoughts via email. I would like to discuss with you > all on > the call Wednesday. > > Cheers, > Kevin > > Kevin Novak > Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology > The American Institute of Architects > 1735 New York Avenue, NW > Washington, DC 20006 > > Voice: 202-626-7303 > Cell: 202-731-0037 > Twitter: @novakkevin > Fax: 202-639-7606 > Email: kevinnovak@aia.org > Website: www.aia.org <http://www.aia.org/> > > > AIA NAMED BEST ASSOCIATIONS WEBSITE FOR THE 12th ANNUAL WEBBY AWARDS! > > America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for International > Honor > for the Web > > The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architectural > profession and the resource for its members in service to society. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [ mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org > <mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:40 PM > To: eGov IG > Subject: first rough draft of 2nd charter > > All, > > It's available at: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Charter2 > > Thanks Kevin for drafting this one. > > This is still a very rough draft and needs discussion. Please, do not > edit in place just yet but discuss in the mailing list first. > > Best, > Jose. > > -- > Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org> W3C/CTIC > eGovernment Lead http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/ > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.58/2164 - Release Date: > 06/08/09 > 17:59:00 > >> > >
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 18:32:03 UTC