Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

Hi all--

Just to echo what others have said, I feel strongly that we should be moving ahead with our discussions of the practical aspects of eGovernment, the successful implementations, and the lessons learned from successes and failures in eGovernment.

If we want to reconsider definitions, we can do that as we progress, but to spend time re-doing that now would not be useful to the greatest number of our members.  As Tomasz noted, the group formed in 2008 did a good job of defining these at that time.

Some of the things stated most clearly at the meetings in Brussels (and other recent meetings of the group and other related events):

  1.  We need a directory of eGovernment activities and examples
  2.  We need examples of tangible benefits and return on investment
  3.  People are ready to share the practical implementations of eGovernment

As a way to help move us forward, I've also posted the upcoming meeting times to the wiki: http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Main_Page  This will help to see that each time zone meeting occurs every 4 weeks (therefore giving us one group meeting every two weeks).

  *    29 June 2012 Meeting: Agenda to discuss this roadmap (0800-0930 Los Angeles time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGov+Interest+Group%3A+Western&iso=20120629T08&p1=137&ah=1&am=30)
  *   9 July 2012 Meeting: Agenda to discuss this roadmap (0900-1030 London time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGov+Interest+Group%3A+Eastern&iso=20120709T16&p1=102&ah=1&am=30)
  *   27 July 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   6 August 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
  *   24 August 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   3 September 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
  *   21 September 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   1 October 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
  *   19 October 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   29 October 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
  *   16 November 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   26 November 2012 Meeting (0900-1030 London time)
  *   14 December 2012 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)
  *   24 December 2012 Meeting: NO MEETING
  *   11 January 2013 Meeting (0800-0930 Los Angeles time)

Please look over the roadmap and see if it makes sense and what you would add.

--Jeanne

**********************************************************
Jeanne Holm
Evangelist, Data.gov
U.S. General Services Administration
Cell: (818) 434-5037
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
**********************************************************

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com<mailto:gannon_dick@yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com<mailto:gannon_dick@yahoo.com>>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:30:26 +0200
To: Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net<mailto:bniemann@cox.net>>, 'John Erickson' <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>>, 'Tomasz Janowski' <tj@iist.unu.edu<mailto:tj@iist.unu.edu>>
Cc: 'Paola Di Maio' <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>, Jeanne Holm <Jeanne.M.Holm@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Jeanne.M.Holm@jpl.nasa.gov>>, "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>>, "'eGov IG (Public)'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

I can see both sides, but have to say I'm starting to cringe every time I hear the word 'innovation'.  The question for eGov should be: toward what goal does an innovation draw you ?  For data analysis there is a necessary federalization step in the algorithm.  It is laboratory preparation, not an experimental result.  Yes, measuring Colligative Properties is experimentally difficult away from the critical points (Brand et. al.).  And, nothing is solved by labeling the average or Central Limit "a critical point" - "untethered" does not mean empire building to the exclusion of smaller existing bits of the empire (John et. al.).  The challenge is very subtle for eGov, and must be confronted head on:  A sui generis data base implies that no midpoints even exist for triangulation and all hyperlinks are direct, non-stop routes.  I would say, maybe, because it depends if you limit the data to a range of identifiers first or federalized the data first.  Federalization first leads to un-sustainability in innovation, which is why I cringe.


________________________________
From: Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net<mailto:bniemann@cox.net>>
To: 'John Erickson' <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>>; 'Tomasz Janowski' <tj@iist.unu.edu<mailto:tj@iist.unu.edu>>
Cc: 'Paola Di Maio' <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>; "'Holm, Jeanne M (1760)'" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>>; paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; 'eGov IG (Public)' <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

John, Thank you for that perspective. At the meeting I attended this week:
http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/Big_Data_and_the_Government_Ente
rprise

Dr. George Strawn who works for the President's Science advisor said we have
gone from words like open government data, to cloud computing, to big data,
but that if we do not start producing real results with government data for
business and science, we will be on to something else next year.

Robert Ames, senior VP for In-Q-Tel, that funds the most innovation
technologies that work with big data, said he thinks next years word and
conferences will be data science and data scientist.

Dr. Chris Greer, NIST program director for cloud computing, etc., talked
about modifying the Cloud Computing Roadmap for big data based on last
week's workshop at NIST:
http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/BIG_DATA_Workshop

Brand

-----Original Message-----
From: John Erickson [mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:03 AM
To: Tomasz Janowski
Cc: Paola Di Maio; Holm, Jeanne M (1760); paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; eGov
IG (Public)
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<mailto: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<http://tw.rpi.edu/>> <olyerickson@gmail.com<mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson