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

Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Pito Salas <rps@salas.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:22:48 -0400
Message-ID: <dbbd1cd0905270622o1f99f0b0v30ce620ffef13510@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Carmel <joe.carmel@comcast.net>
Cc: "Tumin, Zachary" <Zachary_Tumin@hks.harvard.edu>, "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>

Interesting thread; I will sign up to the list.. In the meanwhile:

1) I am no longer calling my this thing "datarss" as that has created
more confusion than clarity. I haven't updated the documents yet, but
I think a better working name for this is "decentralized data
2) Here is a 'worked' example that might be of interest:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14136777/DataRss-Tech-Overview. Forgive that
the examples are in YAML but its a simple to translate that to XML of
3) I also am not saying that this is THE ANSWER, but suggests a direction.
4) I submitted this as an idea on the opengov list:

I am continuing to work on DDD as a side project. If anyone is
interested in learning more, comparing notes, or helping...?

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Joe Carmel <joe.carmel@comcast.net> wrote:
> As an experiment and first step, I've converted the non well-formed HTML at
> data.gov (http://www.data.gov/catalog/category/0/agency/0/filter//type#raw)
> to a well-formed data-centric XML file
> (http://www.xmldatasets.net/data.gov/catalog.xml).
> This is pretty much the simplest XML version of the data I could come up
> with and I'm sure different people will view this version both positively
> (it is well formed and can be accessed with various tools) and negatively
> (it doesn't go far enough).  I haven't "pulled in" the "details" data for
> each dataset (e.g., http://www.data.gov/details/16) which includes category,
> date released, etc. which could be used with faceted browsing, etc. but I
> wanted to take a first stab at the data, get the conversation going, and
> hopefully provide a file that others can use/manipulate/extend to provide
> additional examples of best practice ideas.
> I definitely do not have the ANSWER nor am I proposing that the XML file I
> created is the ANSWER but I think we likely need examples in order to
> discuss the pros and cons of various approach and I thought having a
> well-formed version of the data to create additional examples would make it
> easier for other developers.
> Here are a couple of interesting links for further ideas.
> http://www.epsiplus.net/events/thematic_meetings/information_standards/stand
> ards_meeting_3/information_asset_registers_opsi_discussion_paper
> http://www.salas.com/2009/04/13/geeky-how-datarss-might-work/
> Thanks,
> Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Tumin, Zachary
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:59 AM
> To: Jose M. Alonso; Owen Ambur
> Cc: 'eGov IG'
> Subject: RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process
> 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 -
> Zach
> ============================================
> 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).
> +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 14:06:09 UTC

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