See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2009
<kevin> Good Morning all
<scribe> scribe: josema
[all, see: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open]
kevin: met BSA, government reps from some
vendors, at meeting at The White House
... good discussion, interest in our work, BSA submitted comments already
... Beth Noveck asked people in the room if they were participating in this
W3C work
... heard it was received as they should work with us
... also Bev keeping us in the forefront
... I also participated in TWB/OASIS workshop on April, 17th
... people from several countries, some african countries
... all discussions about standards referring to W3C work
suzanne: great news, I appreciate hearing that
issue list: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open
ISSUE-1
@@Semantic agreement in advance facilitates all exchanging parties to have a common understanding of the meaning of the data exchanged ISSUE-1@@
[comments in @@ come from editor's draft]
<davemc> Owen +1
owen: as much agreement in advance as possible is
good
... [scribe missed comment]
Daniel: I don't think this is a requirement but a best practice
<kevin> Daniel, I agree it is a best practice
john: I like the wording, can live with that
<Owen> From my perspective, the key point is to publish the names and plain-language definitions of each element regardless of how many people may or may not agree.
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-1
[Chairs: no need to resolve more, directly close them when agreement reached]
trackbot, close ISSUE-2
<trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition closed
trackbot, close ISSUE-1
<trackbot> ISSUE-1 is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance? closed
trackbot, open ISSUE-2
<trackbot> Sorry, josema, I don't understand 'trackbot, open ISSUE-2'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
ISSUE-2
[john tries to cut himself in two...]
<john> lol
<davemc> agreed. let's not be too academically perfect.
[suzanne suggests to review authoritative references and highlight the common thing]
[see some at: http://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/2009-02-28_TCamp_Data_Standards.pdf]
<davemc> a definitive reference would be it's own working group
suzanne: if there's no formal and definitive
definition we should point to what is available
... but get to just one could take us a lot of time
<john> agree with 7 / 8 of those listed
<john> no 8 is troublesome
john: be careful not to enter the OSS vs. proprietary software discussion
<davemc> also be careful to avoid the "free software" versus "open source" lexicon
john: we should point to what people mean as OGD, not endorse any
suzanne: make situation awareness
dave: could even be a subgroup in the new charter
<scribe> ACTION: kevin to deal with ISSUE-2 along this line [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Deal with ISSUE-2 along this line [on Kevin Novak - due 2009-05-06].
ISSUE-2: see ACTION-55
<trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition notes added
<Owen> It is not necessary to get into the debate over open source versus proprietary software in order to outline the attributes of open *data*.
ISSUE-3
<davemc> I vote to close this...
kevin: propose to leave it as is and close it
suzanne: agree
... it could be a good thing to add to an appendix or glossary
[also on ISSUE-26 on having a glossary]
suzanne: should we add a glossary?
jose: I'd like to if someone takes responsibility
daniel: +1, maybe using wiki approach
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to start glossary related to ISSUE-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Start glossary related to ISSUE-26 [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].
ISSUE-26: see ACTION-56
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 glossary to be added to the document? notes added
close ISSUE-26
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 glossary to be added to the document? closed
ISSUE-2, glossary will hold this
close ISSUE-2
<trackbot> ISSUE-2 Open Government Data Definition closed
close ISSUE-3
<trackbot> ISSUE-3 spelling of eGovernment closed
<john> he is right
ISSUE-4
jose: I would add it
Daniel: [on issue in US around this and
re-selling datasets]
... potential issue, don't think we should say governments should do this
john: not say it's desirable but ack it as approach
owen: US FOIA says gov should maintain data in formats requested ??
dave: sounds like we are discussing packaging rather than data at this point
<kevin> I agree with John
<Owen> The E-FOIA amendments are available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm
<scribe> ACTION: john to write a paragraph to add this one [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - john
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jwonderl, jsherida)
<scribe> ACTION: jsherida to write a paragraph to add this one [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Write a paragraph to add this one [on John Sheridan - due 2009-05-06].
ISSUE-4: see ACTION-57
<trackbot> ISSUE-4 Raw Data or Bulk Data downloads should be added to OGD section notes added
[discussions on approach in EU and US]
[on how to reference, how this can be or not mandated by govs]
[this is an issues doc; we should highlight it as an issue[
ISSUE-5
owen: should W3C recs be in FEA TRM?
[nothing heard]
owen: yes
daniel: let them be able to reference it, not say they should reference it
owen: it's the technical _reference_ model not the technical _mandate_ model
suzanne: we are writing a doc that have potential
to turn into set of guidelines
... TRM way of reference is one way but what about other countries?
kevin: we should be broad
<davemc> Kevin +1 : Broad, but flexible
kevin: I don't think we'll have a pretty clear view yet
suzanne: issues can turn into opportunities for future work
<john> +1
<davemc> Suzanne +1
<Owen> It would be good if the "data" contained in "standards" (like W3C Recommendations) were readily referenceable in national TRMs.
[suzanne leaves call]
ISSUE-5, go ahead with broad but flexible approach
close ISSUE-19
<trackbot> ISSUE-19 The mention of human readable format using HTML seems unclearly focused closed
close ISSUE-27
<trackbot> ISSUE-27 remove negative reference to PDF closed
dave: fine with replacement text on both
[reviewing accessibility issues]
jose: added everything to the doc, fine with me, they are the experts
kevin: anything controversial?
<john> kevin +1
sharron: I'm in both groups, nothing controversial, just making a better distinction
close ISSUE-6
<trackbot> ISSUE-6 open standards to achieve participation and engagement closed
[all fine with accessibility related changes]
ISSUE-7
[distinction between sw and data stds?]
<john> I'm enjoying the discussion
[level you _need_ to achieve vs. level you _want_ to achieve]
[on policy need to have higher degree of interop e.g. on geospatial data]
<davemc> John +1
[we don't need everything to interop with everything from a gov perspective]
close ISSUE-7
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 achieving interoperability should be done through standardization closed
jose: several on adding pointers and examples can be already closed, it's being done
kevin: +1
john: +1
<scribe> ACTION: josema to close those ISSUES that have been integrated in the doc already [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Close those ISSUES that have been integrated in the doc already [on José Manuel Alonso - due 2009-05-06].
sharron: will the structure of the document
change significantly to improve narrative ??
... I can volunteer to help with that
ISSUE-10: yes
<trackbot> ISSUE-10 creation of an executive summary for C-level audience notes added
<scribe> ACTION: kevin to develop exec summary and abstract [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Develop exec summary and abstract [on Kevin Novak - due 2009-05-06].
<scribe> ACTION: sharron to help develop exec summary and abstract [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Help develop exec summary and abstract [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].
ISSUE-11: add them to glossary, too
<trackbot> ISSUE-11 abbreviations like API, PSI etc. needs to be explained the first time and more tweaks to abbreviations might be needed notes added
[when producing the glossary take into account the abbreviations]
close ISSUE-11
<trackbot> ISSUE-11 abbreviations like API, PSI etc. needs to be explained the first time and more tweaks to abbreviations might be needed closed
ISSUE-15, ISSUE-17, daniel working on it, will deliver text tomorrow
ISSUE-17: Daniel, more of a philosofical rather than technical but I'll call out
<trackbot> ISSUE-17 safe to play notes added
ISSUE-18
josema: not sure what to do with this one, not easy
kevin: I think we should be broad and flexible again
daniel: we should be very careful
john: it's a hard question
kevin: should we have a list?
john: it can be problematic
josema: +1
daniel: +1
ISSUE-18: use Web content from WCAG2.0, referencing from document as a whole where needed
<trackbot> ISSUE-18 should more non W3C standards be added? notes added
<scribe> ACTION: sharron to review document with ISSUE-18 in mind [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Review document with ISSUE-18 in mind [on Sharron Rush - due 2009-05-06].
ISSUE-18: see ACTION-61
<trackbot> ISSUE-18 should more non W3C standards be added? notes added
ISSUE-22
Daniel: we should add something saying that debate and dialogue is important and should be added
sharron: +1
<scribe> ACTION: daniel to provide replacement text to add ISSUE-22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-egov-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Provide replacement text to add ISSUE-22 [on Daniel Bennett - due 2009-05-06].
close ISSUE-25
<trackbot> ISSUE-25 more good practice around URIs and URLs closed
<john> great job josema!
[all review already proposed schedule and agree]
[ADJOURNED]