W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > May 2009

RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: <Niemann.Brand@epamail.epa.gov>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:45:09 -0400
To: "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Cc: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFF61ED35.C756E229-ON852575C2.0049B18E-852575C2.004B8F13@epamail.epa.gov>
Owen, I agree with your comments especially about data.gov being another
fedstats.gov stovepipe. Interestingly, I was invloved in both
fedstats.gov and at the same time an advanced version using early
distributed processing (leave the data where is originates and connect
it across the internet), and recently in doing a Web 2.0 and 3.0
versions that demonstrates the new features of the DRM that we are

Please see
slides 9-14 and
 slides 28 etc. and slides 38 etc.


  From:       "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>                                                                      
  To:         "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>                                                                        
  Date:       05/23/2009 12:31 PM                                                                                        
  Subject:    RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process                                                                

I strongly support Joe's line of reasoning and would reiterate that for
U.S. federal government the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Data
Reference Model (DRM) was supposed to serve the function that Joe
highlights.  http://xml.gov/draft/drm20060105.xsd

Like Joe, I am also very glad that the Data.gov site has been made
available.  However, like all of the other so-called "one-stop portals"
have been stood up, it is yet another data stovepipe system in that, as
points out, the data (metadata) it provides is not readily
shareable/referenceable/reusable and one must know where to look in
order to
find it.  While those of us who are focusing on .gov data know about it,
average citizen probably will not.

If full-blown implementation of the XML schema for the DRM is deemed to
too much to expect, it would be good, as Joe suggests, if the eGov IG
at least suggest that a smaller, more manageable set of metadata be
associated with .gov datasets -- in an open, standard format that is
shareable/referenceable/reusable not just by Data.gov but also anyone
(I understand the Data.gov folks started with the Dublin Core but
implemented Data.gov's metadata in a stovepipe fashion.)

BTW, to a large degree, Data.gov duplicates another good site that has
available for a number of years but which also happens to be a data
stovepipe:  http://www.fedstats.gov/

One of the hallmarks of moving out of childhood is being able to
other points of view, i.e., to put one's self in another person's shoes.
that measure, .gov agencies are still in early childhood when it comes
citizen-centricity.  It would be good if the eGov IG could help .gov
agencies worldwide achieve a marginally higher level of maturity.  (One
the longer-term objectives of the StratML standard is to enable users to
submit queries in terms of their *own* goals and objectives, i.e., what
want to *do*, and retrieve exactly what they need to accomplish *their*

Another relevant thought of which this thread reminds me is that the job
a good manager is to eliminate his or her own job, by enabling others to
their jobs without the "leader's" guidance/assistance.  In that respect,
hopefully, Data.gov is merely a prototype that will help elevate
understanding of the potential for a better future.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [
On Behalf Of Joe Carmel
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:14 PM
To: 'Owen Ambur'; 'Daniel Bennett'; 'Jose M. Alonso'
Cc: 'Sharron Rush'; 'eGov IG'
Subject: RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

Owen Ambur wrote:

>I also agree that a good topic of focus for the eGov IG would be open
government data (OGD), such as:
>a) how agencies can make their data more readily discoverable and

It seems to me that while standards exist for resource descriptions
RSS, Atom), these standards are not commonly used to identify and expose
open government datasets.  These current standards are either inadequate
perceived to be inadequate...or government agencies are possibly
that publishing a catalog of their datasets would not be useful.

The recently published data.gov site seems like a great place to
best practices in this area since the site's purpose is to point to open
government datasets.  I certainly don't want to disparage the incredibly
excellent efforts of data.gov, but the page that lists the datasets
(http://www.data.gov/catalog/category/0/agency/0/filter//type#raw:) is
valid per http://validator.w3.org/ nor is it well-formed per
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/xml-check.html  This means that it
be used primarily for human access.  Machine access will be limited to
text-based screenscraping -- the practice I think we're hoping to

Alternatively, it's possible to find open government data by using
advanced search capabilities (for example "filetype:xls site:usda.gov"
return Excel files), but this approach provides little or no metadata
the specific files and might even lack official status.  You only really
know for certain that the file is on the site, but you can't tell if the
data is test data, out-of-date data, or something real.

I think "we" need a common approach (e.g., file format) for dataset
cataloging that provides basic information about each dataset on a
Often, datasets reside in WAFs (web accessible folders) such as
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111 and these often have readme files
how does one discover the existence of these folders in the first place.

Daniel Bennett has proposed the idea of repository schemas which if I
understand correctly will address some if not all of these issues.
Regardless of the format(s) used, the need obviously exists.  Even
as simple as: http://www.xml.gov/stratml/urls.xml or
http://www.xmldatasets.net/data/index.xml is much better than nothing.
Here's an example of an Atom file pointing to XML datasets for Federal
Government StratML files: http://www.xmldatasets.net/data/fedgovt.xml
URLs simply provide examples of different ways to catalog datasets but I
think to really make it work, the government should consider
two things: (1) a standard file location for their datasets catalog
catalog.xml or catalog.html off the root) and (2) establish/use a
accessible (well-formed) approach that allows for extensibility by
individual government organizations.

Returning to Jose's point about the role of the W3C eGov and the
while the IG can't create a standard or even a recommendation, I would
we can point out where standards need to be established and the value to
gained from their establishment and use.  Given the diversity of file
formats used by governments for the representation of data (e.g., XML,
XLS, PDF, HTML, DBF, etc.), I'm not sure we can gain much by adding
data-format standard to the mix, but there certainly seems to be a
vacuum in
terms of the cataloging of government datasets or as Owen put it: how
agencies can make their data more readily discoverable and usable.



-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [
On Behalf Of Daniel Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Jose M. Alonso
Cc: Sharron Rush; eGov IG
Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

I was thinking that having best practices and having use cases was the
obvious things to do. I think that the "small how-to" project of
and exposing OGD is actually a huge, but important project that I
encompasses citations and indexing documents (hmmm perhaps schematizing
repositories). Citations would be a big win that could help transform
and referencing govt. documents.

Another not-so-small project is to allow for a posting of what various
governments are using and the standards they are using or breaking.
Legislatures, executive and judicial organizations across the world use
different authoring tools that often determine what is published online
how, the success in using standards or being accessible, how the
governmental entities index/make searchable/usable the online documents
services, are all datum that we could help be collected. We don't need
even comment on the data collected, just make it reference-able for
conversation. And this would help governments find out what software is
available, especially if the software was developed internally and could
made available. In the United States alone there are thousands of
governments (federal, state, municipal) using different standards and
with different results, but no place to post and/or search for what they
all doing.


Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> ...
>>>  + a set of small docs with guidance?
>>>   (could be recs or not)
>> I am not sure what these "small docs" would do that would not be
>> included in BP and the rewritten Note, but am open to suggestion. Are

>> you thinking of technical documents that would be more of a how-to?
>> a series of case studies of particularly effective practices?
> I was thinking of small how-to like things, e.g. techniques to
> identify and expose OGD, but also identification of scenarios to do
> so. More how-to than case studies.
>>  The suite of ARIA documents could be a model, I suppose.
> Maybe... I like this how-to piece:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#accessiblewidget
>>  This one requires more consideration and could be decided after
>> being chartered, is that not so?  or do we need to state our entire
>> scope of work at the time of charter?
> As specific as possible is always welcome, but we can definitely leave

> some room as we did first time. More on charters:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#WGCharter
>>>  + a second version of the Note?
>>>   (no need to be a rec, as you know)
>> Yes, the Note must be rewritten for coherence, narrative flow,
>> conclusions, etc.
> Heard several saying this. I don't have an opinion yet besides that
> this should be done if there are group members willing to take on this

> task.
>>> In summary: going normative is "stronger" but has more implications:
>>> patent policy matters, strongest coordination with other groups,
>>> more process-related stuff to deal with...
>> If we are saying that we will produce normative standards and expect
>> eGov practitioners around the world to begin to claim "conformance"
>> to these standards,  that is a mighty undertaking.  Think of the
>> arduous processes around WCAG2 and HTML5.  Also, eGov is a bit less
>> easily defined because of cultural influences, history, forms of
>> government etc.  I would advise that we not commit to normative
>> output at this time, but as previously stated, happy to hear another
>> point of view.
> Ok, thanks. I think I'm more of a non-normative opinion so far.
>> Please let me know if this is the type of input needed and/or if I
>> have overlooked any questions.
> Very much so, thanks!
> If you have something more specific in mind about the content we
> should produce, please share it, too.
> Cheers,
> Jose.
>> Thanks,
>> Sharron
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GAGeneral
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter
>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary
>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/AboutW3CSlides/images/groupProcess.png
>>> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#Reports
>>> [7] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter
>>> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
>>> --
>>> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
>>> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 13:45:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:43:09 UTC