eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

12 Nov 2008

See also: IRC log


kevin, john, rachel, owen, kjetil, jose, tom, rinke
martin, jeff
john, kevin


appoint scribe

<josema> scribe: josema

[usual one I guess]

john: thanks jose

agenda adjustments

john: recaps


kjetil: can we add current discussion on the list about use cases?

kevin: let's do before next steps but after topic areas

john: ok


john: I think nobody new, right?

[nothing heard]

review of open actions


[agenda at http://www.w3.org/mid/88A6AFA61447AC4AB9F280FC6747F908117650B2@na-exch1.in.tna.local]

trackbot, close ACTION-35

<trackbot> ACTION-35 Will prepare agenda and circulate to call pparticipants closed

ACTION-3 and ACTION-12 not pressing

john: on ACTION-14
... how we could present to organizations how they could present to
... decision makers the benefit of joining

<Zakim> kjetil, you wanted to say something open standards

kevin: in this time of economic crisis, we should try to find a way to engage more people, look more closely into the benefits

kjetil: engage through open standards

kevin: in my experience govs use the "wait and see" approach
... we need to convince them to participate in what we are doing

john: for a government department Membership fee is not expensive
... need to "sell" the way we work and the level of conversations we have
... compared to other expenditures, the ROI is very good
... coming back to the action, I'll post something to the Group on how we did it
... how we achieved it, how we showed this is pretty low cost

josema: what about ACTION-30?

<kjetil> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/30

john: draft position paper to tell the workshop we are finding some issues
... on governments using social media

W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking - Call for Participation

[deadline for position papers seems to be 20 Nov]

john: any additional input?

kevin: discussion last week, especially with Ari about this, related to TF2

rachel: I have a couple things I could contribute
... on social media providers building apps for US federal gov

kevin: are you in touch with Michelle Springer (LoC)?

rachel: yes
... couple agencies negotiating individually
... but we are working on some generic framework/agreement for agencies
... best practices that we could replicate trough providers
... working on example agreement we could share

john: my responsibility is to manage Crown copyright
... some videos posted to YouTube, need to look into that
... now it's possible to do that
... eg. Justice doing this and building Wordpress-based Web site
... integrating this plus images they archive on Flickr, etc.
... target audience is journalists
... also UK National Archives encouraging people to post to Flickr
... eg. paper documents
... some copyright issues to be solved, but once done, powerful stuff
... we've just started last week

kevin: reference point, LoC, you all probably remember Commons
... project with Flickr, tremendous participation

john: we actually use LoC example
... much easier to show when someone already started
... understood as not so risky
... I'll post something a bit later wrt the paper
... please Rachel do same if possible within the next 24 hours
... I take responsibility of putting it together, a draft we can submit

structure/submission of use cases

kjetil: discussion on how to submit use cases
... started with me submitting one on "Semantic My Page"

Use Case:"Semantic My Page"

<kjetil> darobin, are you on the call?

scribe: jose mentioned SWEO; me also POWDER and EXI prior experience, which is different from SWEO
... it's important for the Group to work about use cases that people will commit to write
... not just those that look appealing to some

john: developing use cases in topic areas is what I believe we should be doing
... if I understand you right, you propose to add an extra step to filter them?

kjetil: how narrow are the topic areas? how people in the Group feel about them?

john: I think it gives a pretty clear idea of where we are heading to
... conclusion at the F2F was that use cases should exemplify those
... to capture government requirements
... they are fairly broad, maybe quite government centric

kjetil: should they be even more use case driven?
... should we try to go beyond that and think how governments should work in the future?

john: do you mean what might be possible in five years time?
... or what we should improve from now in the next five years?

kjetil: good observation
... I think that being use case driven we should be able to narrow the scope more
... could help us in deciding what kind of focus we want

john: for me right now, it's clear that we need to document the topic areas
... we already have, that would mean we have captured *something*

kevin: +1
... we need to focus on the ones we have, build use cases and then proceed forward

kjetil: can people agree on the progress?
... on the model for use case collection?
... a distillation of things we can build consensus around and not verbatim copy of the use cases?

john: we have to do more than just capture them, I agree with that

kjetil: we need to make sure that we don't get out of scope
... avoid things on the use cases that nobody will work on

john: +1

kevin: +1

john: I think is important for business interest from my organization to identify some of the things
... we have been talking about

[rachel leaves call]

kjetil: we are in brainstorming mode for now, we should try not to prevent people from brainstorming, but we need to chop down to limit the scope for the Note

review of topic areas

john: we structured these in terms of TF work

[ 5.1 Taskforce 1

Semantic Interoperability

Persistent URIs

Identification + Authentication

Digital Preservation + Authenticity

Temporal Data]

john: I'd like to hear opinions from those on the call about the structure
... if you believe all of the above fit in TF1 or not

<josema> I've added "13.Multi channel delivery" to http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Cases#topics , still not sure about the opinion of the Chairs/Group if that was really missing

kjetil: I think it looks good but don't think it should be set in stone
... until we produce the note

john: you mean we should allow topic areas to flow between TFs?

kjetil: yes, once the use cases note published they should be fairly strict

josema: two questions: is 13 really missing or not? and have TF coordinators agreed on the distribution of use cases, namely, do they have resources to commit?

<kevin> yes

<kevin> they each mentioned that they have the resources

josema: great news, and 13?

john: I don't recall us talking about this at the Chairs meeting

kevin: me neither

josema: opinion? I could take it

john: we may deal with 13 as well as 4 and 6 ?
... postponing them for now
... unless someone could take any and move them forward at any point in time

[rinke, tom leave call]

kevin: we could send a message to the list and see if someone is interested in going forward

john: good idea

ACTION jsherida to post and ask around about 4, 6, 13

<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Post and ask around about 4, 6, 13 [on John Sheridan - due 2008-11-19].

john: let's review the topic areas aligned with TF2

[ Performance Data + Citizen Choice

What Data? How does the government decide?

Participation in Social Media; what are the rules ?]

john: any comment about those three or their relation to TF2?

[none heard]

john: an observation on the issue of performance data
... a colleague of mine asked recently people if they use decision support tools
... eg. tripadvisor to plan a holiday: majority said "yes"
... same question on using public services, nobody said "yes"
... of course, to be able to do that, eg. "holidays were good", "restaurant was good" you need some performance data
... moving to TF3

[Data Aggregation

Your Web Site is your API]

john: I know that "Your Web Site is your API" is something that Oscar is keen on taking on

kevin: there was a discussion on the Chairs call with the connection between TF3 and TF1
... on some of this, they agreed on talking to each other, find out where's the overlap
... then proceed

next steps

john: next steps, we encouraged the TF coordinators to go ahead, take some actions *soon*

kevin: agree, if not we'll be distracted because of the holidays

john: hopefully, we'll have some work to review on the next Group call
... so next step is get done existing actions

kevin: I'll talk to TF coordinators to have this going

john: so you'll check if something done by them during the last week
... and then back to existing actions

kevin: will also talk to tanya, randeep wrt potential spring workshop

john: not much more to say, just energize the Group, please go ahead

kevin: +1

next meeting

john: next meeting: 26 Nov, 14:00Z

kevin: it's thanksgiving week in the US, people in the government usually drop off completely that week
... we can leave the date as is and query the Group later to see

john: +1
... so let's stick to the 26th
... I expect similar agenda structure
... anything else before we adjourn?


Summary of Action Items

ACTION-36 - Post and ask around about 4, 6, 13 [on John Sheridan - due 2008-11-19].

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/11/14 09:45:34 $