- From: michail vafopoulos <vafopoulos@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:10:27 +0300
- To: "Aisenberg, Michael A." <maisenberg@mitre.org>
- Cc: "'olyerickson@gmail.com'" <olyerickson@gmail.com>, "'tj@iist.unu.edu'" <tj@iist.unu.edu>, "'paola.dimaio@gmail.com'" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "'jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov'" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>, "'paoladimaio10@googlemail.com'" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "'public-egov-ig@w3.org'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F98894C9-54CE-4B79-A0C7-EF8181DA9DF5@gmail.com>
not in a single file yet, but it can be found as separate files here http://www.w3.org/2012/06/pmod/agenda best michalis vafopoulos adjunct professor National Technical University of Athens vafopoulos.org Jun 23, 2012, 4:57 PM, ο/η Aisenberg, Michael A. έγγραψε: > A few of us, with interest and potentially, value to add were NOT unfortunately in BRU....perhaps someone who was their can point to precis/proceedings ? > Regards, > Michael Aisenberg, Esq. > MITRE > M.A.A. Sent from handheld > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Erickson [mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:02 AM > To: Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> > Cc: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>; Holm, Jeanne M (1760) <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>; paoladimaio10@googlemail.com <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap > > Many of the participants in the new, fresh W3C eGov discussion will > have been at this week's events in Brussels, including "Semantic > Interoperability" <http://bit.ly/KEGpQr>, "Using Open Data" > <http://bit.ly/yN8Exb> and "Digital Agenda Assembly" > <http://bit.ly/L37Ksa>. Although I could only participate in the > second, I must say I did not hear any calls to stop the meeting and > define terms --- there seems to be a consensus in the room of what is > meant by e-government. > > Maybe that's because the participants are so refreshing engaged, > thinking about practical ways to use government open data to reach out > to citizens, to implement evidence-based policy making, and other > innovations in participatory government. We are living in exciting > times, with enormous opportunities to affect change in the world! > > My point is, I hope we spend time in eGov talking about these sorts of > innovations and less about definitions... > > John > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > John S. Erickson, Ph.D. > Director, Web Science Operations > Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) > <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com> > Twitter & Skype: olyerickson > >
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 14:14:50 UTC