- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:48:06 -0400
- To: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Jose, thanks for the link to the W3C's new site index. It prompted me to discover the W3C's mission statement, which is now in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#W3C It is the 528th plan indexed in Mark Logic's StratML search service prototype -- http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#SearchServices -- in which it ranks 1st among 92 referencing the "Web". I agree that the site index is a good "framework" for discussion purposes. However, it would be better if we could move beyond the general discussion/brainstorming phase and focus our efforts on more discrete actions (objectives) that we ourselves can take to help the W3C deliver outputs in support of its objectives (in relation to the objectives of .gov agencies) ... and let the results speak for themselves (in terms of outcomes, e.g., actual usage by .gov agencies). >From my perspective, a potentially highly useful output the eGov IG might produce is a model performance plan (against which agency performance could be assessed) that maps W3C Recommendations to .gov services, e.g., the FEA SRM, which is available in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#FEAPMO or, more specifically, http://xml.gov/stratml/FEASRM.xml (Note: If agency Exhibit 300s were available on the Web in XML format, most of those mappings could automatically be generated, indexed and shared for reuse by other agencies. I have suggested that Exhibit 300s should be made available in XML format via the Data.gov site, but my suggestion might carry more weight if it were endorsed by the eGov IG.) Short of that, it would be good if at least the eGov IG could propose inclusion of W3C Recommendations that are not already in the TRM. http://xml.gov/draft/W3CRecommendationsFEATRM.pdf & http://xml.gov/stratml/crane/FEATRM.xml (If the IG could merely agree that all W3C Recommendations should be referenced in the TRM, I would be happy to volunteer to use the ET.gov site on behalf of the IG to identify each of them as candidates for inclusion in the TRM.) Consistent with the current emphasis on segment architecture, the IG could focus first on any "segment(s)" toward which any member(s) of the IG may wish to contribute useful information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fsam/ & http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/ Owen -----Original Message----- From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:01 AM To: eGov IG Subject: Re: task forces -- Re: first rough draft of 2nd charter The site map and index here could be of help to frame discussion: http://beta.w3.org/Consortium/siteindex I'm not hearing discussion yet on any of the points I made so far, and I'm the only one who edited the Charter in the wiki. It looks difficult EB could take on it after the call next Wed... and if so, we'd be at risk of missing deadlines... -- Jose El 14/06/2009, a las 1:30, Jose M. Alonso escribió: > 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 Friday, 19 June 2009 16:49:00 UTC