eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference -- 19 Aug 2009

Agenda adjustments and next meetings

next meeting: 2 Sept, 1300Z

next scribe: Daniel

josema: any additions?

daniel: plenary

Data.gov.* memo

<Daniel_Bennett> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfxgcdfc_2494cw4hg8

daniel: difficult to edit the wiki, copied it to Google Docs (see pointer above)
... Adam + me made edits for language, additions
... sent to group recently as starting point for discussion
... we'll use tracker to track comments, etc.
... we have one week to discuss before sending out to ETF
... expecting to present it at Gov 2.0 Summit
... many high level eGov folks attending
... good opportunity

<AdamHarvey> Lots of echo on the call

daniel: expecting to make some PR noise
... I consider the editor's copy at google to be "outline-complete"
... but not "content-complete" yet

<johnlsheridan> sorry I'm late everyone

<josema> john, can you chair from now on? (I'm scribing)

<johnlsheridan> sure

<josema> thx

<scribe> chair: john

<Daniel_Bennett> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfxgcdfc_2494cw4hg8

[daniel reads aloud the first paragraph]

[daniel goes through document]

john: comments?

owen: glad to know about target audience being Gov 2.0 Summit attendants
... graphics can take a lot of time to produce and review
... based on previous experience, so glad to know we have a short time deadline
... important to have high quality content

george: I appreciate the effort
... for those that are trying this "data transparency" world we probably don't want
... to give the impression this is experimental ???
... need to work on solid ground ???
... how people expect readers will digest this ???
... in general looks really great

daniel: adam and I talked about doing a potential use case
... e.g. a national service that could out up useful data up there
... and how people could consume it and visualize it
... e.g. graphs of temperatures over a year

george: sounds great, good approach
... there's also some @@ going on
... I was trying to differentiate between APIs and a little more exploration on what Linked Data actually means
... what's a triple store kind of thing ???

<AdamHarvey> I think George's points will be fleshed out by the small issues papers in the future

daniel: [scribe missed]

george: john, you are using stuff like Talis, right?

john: yes, and also putting together an OSS stack for Linked Data
... we cannot use just one company's approach
... need to have something to give to agencies

george: Talis use is a good example of where and how to put stuff easily
... as an example
... this is not so experimental, not rocket science either

john: quite a few comments
... document is growing
... we're starting to include the howtos
... I think it should be a high level, short and crisp

<AdamHarvey> +1 to john's point about this being high-level doc

john: if we need more accuracy, we should put that in other docs
... mention technologies, for example
... "we're all learning" section for me means
... govs publishing data over the last 10 years
... but not using LOD
... message is tech is mature, gov knowlegde of it is not
... also this IG is the venue to discuss about this
... maybe we need a clearer statement about it
... mature but not operational in gov space yet
... show we as group are here to help move it forward
... in general, for me is a bit too techie and deep

<AdamHarvey> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Aug/0012.html

adam: agree with john
... maybe too deep
... [adam refers to message above]

[@@scribe missed last comment@@]

daniel: part of putting doc out is to have the info there and have the ETF working on it in the sense you mentioned

<johnlsheridan> but this isn't a linked data "how to" right?

<AdamHarvey> I said I feel that the tone of the document should be more inclusive to people who are hesitant about what it takes to start using OGD.

daniel: "we're all learning" should probably say this is just a beginning doc and if you want to learn more
... and move forward, come join us, lot more to do together

<johnlsheridan> +1

daniel: first section could be changed to set the ground saying this are some easy steps you can try
... as a start

<josema> I agree with simplifying and adam's and john's comments

john: we should not produce a detailed howto with this one
... "this is only a beginning" and "here's our group" should be the summary

daniel: should I take out all the technical info?

john: not exactly, we need to achieve a balance
... we maybe just want to say: if you want to do X, go see this (document)
... but probably not deeper than that

owen: we might be talking about a distinction between text and graphical version
... latter could just include high level summary, not technical details, deferred for former

daniel: I thought that was the original idea
... adam has been doing a good job with graphics in that sense

adam: owen's point is what I had in mind with the recipe graphic
... linking to other docs with technical details

daniel: someone could just print the recipe and put it up
... and have it as a primer for the process and could find more details quickly

john: do you think a simplified version of docs or the graphics are good to help data.gov.*
... people to make a decision?

daniel: good question
... it should help people wanting to persuade others of the benefits
... techies would also find their way by following the pointers

john: are we conveying the benefits well enough in the recipe?

daniel: I think the addition of the use case could help
... thinking of having 3-4 slides like that, point to big wins ???

john: when you talk to non-data people, one of the interesting things in LD for them
... (e.g. discussion with UK head of statistics)
... they publish schools data, someone asks for info on schools on a given area
... they need to make an application and aggregate by hand
... LD simplifies this a lot
... there are problems LD solves that are not very difficult but really need to be solved
... and this makes those people's lives easier

daniel: @@

john: this is exactly what we are doing

<Owen> Here's an example of the point that John just made: http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/state_congressional/stateoverview.cfm

daniel: can we use it as example?

john: little bit early
... but we could generalize

daniel: let's talk offline

john: next steps with memo?

<Daniel_Bennett> fyi http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/XQuery/UK_shipping_forecast

john: good conversation so far, reposition lessons learned, see what ETF comes out with
... how long will ETF need?

rachel: the more time, the better

daniel: reminder from beginning of call
... all proposed changes/comments should be sent to me/adam by next Wed
... we'll pull out geeky parts as much as possible from middle of doc
... circulate more graphics based on input
... circulate something else between Wed/Thu next week
... use tracker to track changes/comments
... then send to ETF

<AdamHarvey> I can make textual changes to the graphics quite quickly if necessary.

daniel: that would be the 27th, and we'll still have two weeks

<AdamHarvey> Yeah I'll edit as I go.

rachel: good enough, Adam also on ETF, shouldn't take much

daniel: additions... benefits section, anything else?

john: we need to add stuff
... e.g. showcasing what people can do with your data
... tutorial-like thing giving 1-2 short examples

<AdamHarvey> The showcase could be on the eGov IG site, once we get it running

john: not deep, just two sentences

daniel: eGov Web site, separate thing, where we plan to add showcase, too

john: it's not a marketing/PR doc but should be simplified
... and clarified in some parts, saying we are here to help people expose but also people who wants to consume

sylvia: we should not mislead govs, exposing data different from being transparent
... this bit should be also clarified

john: great point
... it's important to publish the raw data so others can come up with the right visualization
... that put the transparency up there

<AdamHarvey> +1 to John and Sylvia - Perhaps we could offer a w3c seal of approval (sort of like the validator) to govs who do a good job with the transparency?

sylvia: agree, we should keep graphics high level

Charter and Plan

http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/open

http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/81

http://www.w3.org/2009/06/eGov/ig-charter

[jose reviews process again, expects process to be finished by end Sept/mid Oct if everything goes well]

What's going on

[UK]

<Daniel_Bennett> fyi: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/xbrl/cfp.html I am planning on attending

john: talking to people at HP Labs (e.g. Stuart Williams, former TAG co-Chair), Jenni Tennison
... various problems we are finding along the way
... the are many issues LOD community doesn't need to care but we do
... e.g. how to play and experiment and develop the real thing at same time?
... how to build capabilities?
... how to do stuff fast enough to build on the momentum?
... main message: we are doing it, learning heaps and heaps

<Daniel_Bennett> John: "we are learning"

john: applying some of LD stuff to government is not easy, new and specific issues come up often
... we expect to release something sustantive by end of Sept?

daniel: great to hear, but you used the phrase "we're learning", uh?

john: tru, we're learning