- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:00:05 +0200
- To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Cc: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
El 20/05/2009, a las 16:10, Owen Ambur escribió: > While I wouldn't exactly call it a "small" document, I agree that > the Web > Accessibility Initiative's (WAI) Accessible Rich Internet Applications > (ARIA) best practices are a good example of the kind of deliverable > the eGov > IG could produce that might actually be useful to stakeholders who are > capable of using it. > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#accessiblewidget Good example. I'm not sure we need to go down to code, but would love us to produce some of those "recipes" to help me go from Point A to Point B in a OGD project. > 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 > usable, > and > > b) in turn, how stakeholders (including intermediary service > providers) can > measure and assess the degrees to which agencies have done so > (recognizing > that perfection is not the goal and progress generally occurs in > many small > steps). > > In the U.S. federal government, the Federal Enterprise Architecture > (FEA) > Data Reference Model (DRM) was supposed to serve that function. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Enterprise_Architecture#Data_Reference_ > Model_.28DRM.29 However, since agency DRM's themselves are not > readily > discoverable and usable, the FEA DRM as currently being "practiced" > cannot > possibly serve the function for which it was intended, at least not > for > external stakeholders (e.g., citizens). > > The draft XSD for the DRM, which would have made the DRM data itself > "open" > but was not finalized and implemented, is available at > http://xml.gov/draft/drm20060105.xsd > > Other ways of viewing this potential initiative for the eGov IG are > as: > > 1) an internationalized set of best practices for implementing > President > Obama's directive on transparency and open government, which is > available in > StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/DTOG.xml, and > > 2) providing practical proposals for prospective implementation in > services > like http://data.gov/ I like this. > Of course, too, I believe it would be good to explicitly identify our > stakeholders -- both performers (who are volunteering to do the > work) as > well as prospective beneficiaries, whom we should try to engage in > providing > feedback as well as eventually *using* our deliverable(s). +1 -- Jose > Ideally, we > would identify our stakeholders (together with our goals and > objectives) in > a readily shareable format like StratML and, thus, practice what we > preach > while demonstrating leadership by example. > > Owen > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org > ] > On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:50 AM > To: Sharron Rush > Cc: eGov IG > Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process > >> ... >>> + 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 Wednesday, 27 May 2009 11:00:55 UTC