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

RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Tumin, Zachary <Zachary_Tumin@hks.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:58:35 -0400
To: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
CC: 'eGov IG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F6FDE02381F4647B4D4E12EBF010538BE542A0CE0@MAIL.hks.internal>
For a standards discussion, this is riveting. As an IE I have had my eyes opened to any number of important issues, not the least of which the challenge of making data.gov truly "open", what that means, and requires still.

Many thanks -


Zachary Tumin
Executive Director
Leadership for a Networked World Program http://www.lnwprogram.org/ 
John F. Kennedy School of Government | Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street | Cambridge, MA |02138
voice: 617-495-3036 | fax: 617-495-8228 |

-----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 27, 2009 7:00 AM
To: Owen Ambur
Cc: 'eGov IG'
Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

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_Refe
> rence_
> 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).


-- 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 12:03:23 UTC

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