Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

Dear Paola,

Many thanks for your contribution.

> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?

The survey of the eGov Meetings times - the first news on
http://www.w3.org/egov/. The eGov Atlantic Meeting Times poll is
available at http://www.doodle.com/getnrihx2xsibu2y and the Eurasian
pool at http://www.doodle.com/crt6v4su4gums7sk.

> 1. the link to definition, does not redirect to a definition , as
> far as I can see at my end (but good that there is a plan to
> evaluate the definition)

You are right, the definition has gone down the
http://www.w3.org/egov/ page; we are correcting this.

> 2. Any meaningful discussion, for example to address mechanics and
> value proposition is constrained (ontologically) by the definitions
> adopted, therefore I must insist on the suggestion that we need to
> agree with a definition first, and the definition should be 'valid'
> and functional to the purpose of e-government in the true sense.

Your view is noted with thanks. Indeed, we already had a rich exchange
of ideas about the nature and definition of e-government, beyond the
current definition adopted by W3C; which, by the way, facilitated
meaningful discussions of this group since May 2008. The revision of
this definition may be indeed needed, considering new trends in public
sector technology and its larger socio-economic impact since 2008.

But, in my view, this revision should not be a precondition to our
continuing discussion, on the grounds of the current definition and
understanding of e-government by W3C, about the mechanics, value
proposition and localization of e-government. Without considering
these applied areas, I think we will be able to continue conceptual
and terminological discussions for quite a long time, but not conclude
them. The roadmap should help us gradually adopt and then elaborate
(even formalize ontologically) the new understanding and definition of
e-government to address the emerging needs, opportunities and
challenges facing the public sector and its use of the web.

> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
> soliciting as feedback,

Absolutely. Your feedback is always appreciated!

Many regards,

Tomasz

> Dear Jeanne

> thanks for the update

> good to see a plan ahead, I ll aim to contribute when possible to this
> interesting work

> Skimmed through your mail and links, Just a couple of points:
>>
>> First, we will be resuming the meetings for the W3C eGov Interest Group.
>> Based on your responses to the survey, we will have a meeting every two
>> weeks, with differing times to best reach your time zones:

> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?


>> We have published the draft roadmap document to the wiki
>> at http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki. We welcome your comments and
>> suggestions.

> 1. the link to definition, does not redirect to a definition , as far
> as I can see at my end
> (but good that there is a plan to evaluate the definition)

> 2. Any meaningful discussion, for example to address mechanics and
> value proposition
> is constrained (ontologically) by the definitions adopted, therefore I
> must insist on the suggestion that we need to agree with a definition
> first, and the definition should be
> 'valid'  and functional to the purpose of e-government in the true sense.

> 3. define some general vocabulary. Again, this is a recurring thing,
> but the terminology/concepts that we adopt are likely to shape
> discourse. for example, not just the definition of egov.

> For example, I do not object to the word  'citizenry' , but I wonder
> if we all use it in the same way. In the light of
> modern and democratic constitutions that eGov emanates from (from what
> I understand)  citizens are sovereign , therefore citizenry can be a
> synonym of sovereignty Is this what is intended as 'citizenry' in the
> charter


> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
> soliciting as feedback,

> Thank you, best

> PDM

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 05:25:48 UTC