See also: IRC log
<josema> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 01 April 2009
<dmcallis> dmcallis == DaveMcAllister, Adobe (magic decoder ring)
<josema> scribe: Daniel
<josema> scribeNick: Daniel_Bennett
Dave: Hello from Adobe (DaveMcAllister)
Ken: Hi to group
<josema> [dave leads standards work at Adobe]
Kevin: talking about comments on group notes
... issue of ensuring that notes can be read by non-technical readers
... we still have a ways to go on changing text to easier to understand by
non-techs
Jose: I will put a link on IRC of the tracker
that we can use to take in comments/edits
... I have been taking some good comments from outside and use the tracker
.... trying to find a balance on how to handle input.: I can still type
some
<josema> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open
Kevin: Has a comment for Daniel about format of his section
Jose: had comment that Daniel's section should reflect overall outline
Daniel: says I know and will change the document accordingly
<john> Sorry I'm late - just joined the call
Kevin: thinks that use cases and more solutions should be added
Daniel: I agree
John: Hi
Jose: how should we handle the comment period by
April 26
... how to handle editing while comments are coming in?
Daniel: It will get complicated if we don't hold off on editing.
Kevin: I agree that it will be hard to account for changes made while edits are coming out.
<dmcallis> I agree. We should consider them (and potential resolutions) but leave the document static till the open date ends
Kevin: This may be a problem for dates, but still a problem to keep editing.
John: I agree.
Kevin: If we try to get to everything done by date that may not be helpful for the standards.
Jose: Process wise for W3C we need to either ask for a delay or we need to finish by the date.
Kevin: I would like to have effort to finish the
charter in time. Delay only if must.
...trying to keep a lot happening while respecting the process.
Jose: laughs (you know I have to play the conscience role, devil's advocate, whatever you call it in English)
<john> devils advocate?
Jose: my question is answered. first wait for
comments then work on editing.
... we need a call for additional authors.
... not written in stone who the authors are, please, please, please
volunteer
... especially new members
<dmcallis> will review the sections to see if I can add value as author
Kevin: You did put out a call before
... I talked with Larry Masinter at Adobe about some of the sections
Kevin: If we target the 15th for new material would that be a good date?
John: agrees
Kevin: is that reasonable for the authors?
<josema> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-egov-improving-20090310/
Jose: not done sections are- Multi-channel
Deliver and Long term data mgnt.
... I can not do much of the Multi-Channel Delivery so still looking for
someone, Long Term Data was going to be with Chris
Kevin: Chris has an outline
Jose: Chris told me at F2F that it is almost done
Kevin: I will talk to him tomorrow.
Jose: Just publish or work on stuff as soon as
possible
... use the wiki
<josema> editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note
Joe: asks for link to editable for editing
<josema> I personally would prefer to have something on http://www.w3.org/Mobile/ at least
Joe: what about just dropping Multi Channel or what is that?
Kevin: We will try and get this dealing with social, etc. included
Joe: just say mobile? and focus on interop
<dmcallis> multi channel == mobile, MID, desktop, living room (TV)
<dmcallis> major impact on data viewing structure
<josema> right Dave, issue is a)we don't have expertise in Group to talk about all of that b)we decided at the F2F that Mobile was enough for now
Joe: should we stay on basics?
<josema> are you volunteering? :)
Owen: Obama is telling US agencies to keep it simple and raw.
Kevin: keep context out there, but we are trying to bring in all countries.
<dmcallis> and the US is behind in the multi channel space
Daniel: shouldn't we deal with syndication, Twitter, Facebook for Multi Channel
Kevin: we should formulate the base.
... we should cite the standards.
<josema> +1 to Owen!
<josema> on two way street with socmed sites
Daniel: shouldn't we address the standards as a way of explaining how to deal with social media.
Owen: Social Media should work on using standards so that govt can participate.
Dave: Social Media is experimenting so no standards should apply at beginning
Owen: important for govt. should not participate with non-standards
Joe: what about syndication
Dave: explains the mechanism.
<josema> GSA signs deals for agencies to use social networking sites
<josema> remember also that social media incubator at W3C is coming and we'll coordinate with them
Rachel: wanted to let you know that the folks in
govt trenches are dealing with legal issues
... TOS issues
... it takes govt a while to meet legal concerns first
... we are working on it
Kevin: it took Library of Congress 9 months to deal with Flickr because of legal issues, technical ones were done in a week
<dmcallis> The mechanism for most feeds to twitter et.al. is a specific API between the feed (text) to twitter. There are commercial sites (such as TweetLater) that offer these serviices.
Rachel: social media issues published.
<dmcallis> The concern is where to draw the line of social media sites. They appear often, offer new capabilities
Daniel: shouldn't that be posted as a USE CASE for the eGov group
<josema> clearly, we aim for data-in data-out
Ken: May be the committee should address the
broader issues
... build the framework that government operates under.
<Owen> I need to leave at 10:00 to go to a meeting with folks at the U.S. Courts to discuss records management issues.
<Owen> I hope someone can compile a summary report from the F2F, particularly a listing of follow-up action items, if any.
Rachel: govts need to be seen where people are
<dmcallis> do we need to express such data (video) as a recommended standard? encoders/decoders?
Rachel: Social Media folks have been accommodating
<Owen> With respect to the way forward, it seems to me that it would be best to focus on one or two objectives that we can accomplish fairly quickly and well. However, I suspect the reality is that relatively few of us want to work on the same objectives. If not, I suppose the best we can do is take whatever any of us may be willing and able to contribute.
<dmcallis> did we arrive at the definition of this section ? Multi-channel == socila media?
<josema> thanks Owen, I'll make sure to bring this up
Ken: should talk about other forms of reaching out to placing ads, etc.
<Owen> Dave, if you're not already aware of StratML and the PDF form we have used to convert many strategic plans to StratML format, I'd like to exchange E-mail with you about it. My address is owen@ambur.net
<dmcallis> sure: dmcallis@adobe.com
<josema> [Owen leaves call]
Daniel: suggests breaking up Multi channel should be broken into data standards versus social policy
Joe and Ken:Twitter is both syndication and online chat
Joe: Should govt pick winners?
Ken: future of public service announcements should be discussed
<dmcallis> concern on the aggregator. as this new media evolves, many data types in play, many channels. twitter is simple, video is harder. converstaions bring own channels
Daniel:though putting out multiple forms of
information needs to be addressed in paper.
...this discussion points out that the discussion needs to be reflected in
Group Note.
<dmcallis> agreed. this needs to be addressed, perhaps as best practices rather than standards
Kevin: it takes a bit of work to participate with outside media.
Ken: there is no one place to help promote information
<dmcallis> portal approach ++ social broadcast?
<josema> +1, I think this Group's work is way more Best Practices than Standards and that we should coordinate with the other Groups doing technical work as appropriate
<kevin> Jose, agree that is a good approach
Ken: more efforts to get info out
<josema> there you have it, we _only_ need to choose the topics ;)
<dmcallis> apologies. will need to drop off early today
thanks Dave for participating
<daniel> can we come to a decision on this?
John: I suggest creating a London Gazzette for U.S.
[Ken and Rachel: discussion of how to publish data more openly]
<kevin> ok will do
<josema> no matter what we start to discuss (remember: it was multi-channel) we end up discussing OGD
<josema> in the end it's all about the data!
Kevin: lets bring this to conclusion
Ken:how to decrease burden of publishing on both the govt and outside?
<john> good discussion!
<josema> +1 to Kevin
<josema> no time to do that in a month but we should consider it as year 2 work
Kevin: We need to add in this
<josema> W3C Technology Survey
Kevin: we dealt in ways with F2F, mentioned the
TechSurvey
... spoke to data.gov about what would be helpful
... more specifics on incorporating these efforts
[Kevin and Jose: discuss about summary doc]
Kevin: asks folks from the F2F to look summary over
<josema> Summary Report
Kevin: Please look at summary
... I will be at The World Bank meeting on April, 17th
<josema> all kudos on Tech Survey should go to my colleague Eric Prud'hommeaux (W3C), I just made a couple comments
Kevin: from meeting with Beth, we now do have
attendee list
... thanks to all at F2F
<john> +1 kevin's thanks
Jose: wants to finish the Multi Channel and we
need to give Apr. 15th deadline on this.
... and the other section too
<josema> RESOLUTION: content for Multi-Channel and Long Term to be provided by April 15th
Joe: should govt distribution be part of Multi Channel
<daniel> seconds the resolution
<josema> ACTION: Chris to provide content for long term due 2009-04-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Chris
Daniel:Dave seemed to be interested in data standards for Multi Channel
Kevin: we have hashed out this
Ken: willing to write it up
Kevin: lets get just a paragraph done to encapsulate this discussion re: Multi
<josema> ACTION: Ken to summarize approach to Multi Channel [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Summarize approach to Multi Channel [on Ken Fischer - due 2009-04-08].
Ken: agrees to put that paragraph
<josema> [briefly]
Kevin: lets try to define what we are looking at
Jose: will be with us as his contract continued to end of year
<daniel> yeah!
Jose: there is a process for W3C to deal with charter, we need to focus on year 2 issues
<john> so no implications asking for an extension of a month?
Kevin: no implications if we need the time.
<josema> AFAIR, shouldn't be any difficult; IIRC extensions are approved by W3M
Kevin: did an interview with GCN
... Karen is working on more publicity
... getting more members
... any more issues?
John: Cloud computing is not mentioned
... perhaps it should be addressed
Kevin: WSJ article last week talking about this
<john> +1 josema
<john> good call, thanks everyone
Jose: expecting more conversation with charter
next
... week
Kevin: adjourns
[ADJOURNED]