See also: IRC log
<ChrisBeer> Evening all
<ChrisBeer> :) all ... 3 of us
<ChrisBeer> hows life hugh?
<hughb> busy, ridiculously busy
<ChrisBeer> I hear ya - this weeks been a big one
<hughb> the whole gov2au thing passed me by, while I am really happy with it happening, it's frustrating because I have waited a long time for this to happen, then I can't take part
<hughb> I was even on holiday when they had initial submissions and the roadshow
<hughb> anyaway, it seems pretty good, wish they'd lose the "2.0" nonsense
<hughb> I don't know if a w3c egov group submission is practical or even worthwhile
<ChrisBeer> Sorry - was afk (still am kinda) - how so? (all I'm suggesting is a note of support since it's still open for comments - outreach etc. Would of loved to have suggested same for UK/US versions too, but I missed any call for them)
<hughb> note of support seems fine, anything deeper seems problematic
<ChrisBeer> of course - and given we only have till the 16th, anything else is really undoable. I think an open note of support for the UK and US wouldn't be amiss either, however time isn't as pressing in those cases as they are finalised.
<ChrisBeer> Good to see you've signed up for projects btw :)
<hughb> yep, keen to get in
<ChrisBeer> back in 15
<hughb> no worries, I've got plenty going on and am actually gonna restart
<hughb> I am assuming the question raised by Thomas Bandholtz need to be sorted before progress can be made on projects on the Projects page (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Dec/0001.html)
<hughb> am hoping that can be discussed/agreed in meeting later, sandro, so we can get on with them with some certainty
<hughb> an agenda item for you, I won't be around
<ChrisBeer> @hugh Not neccesarily - he does raise quite a valid point I think, however he (IMO) is getting bogged down in the semantics of it all, something I responded to him about on list. We (you and I and others in Aust. gov sphere) prehaps read things differently because we use quite different terms to describe the same thing. OGD is "PSI" under the framework of the 3 rules of OGD from eaves.ca and GLD is the act of actually linking it, either G2G or otherwise...
<ChrisBeer> ie: PSI does not have to be linked, but GLD *has* to be PSI on some level.
<hughb> but is it a *useful* distinction for readers? (I am going to look at the page again)
<ChrisBeer> At the user end? No. Within our sphere, and from the w3c work angle, yes. We could spend years debating the technical aspects ie: GLD, but we could do a lot more, and probably faster, with PSI/OGD in terms of education and outreach. Which per se gives 4 out of 6 projects we could hit fairly quickly. The GLD ones will *have* to include serious input from other w3c areas.
<ChrisBeer> Thanks Vagner! I'm only one of the many though - I wouldn't make anywhere near as many contributions without the others on list getting my mind working.
<ChrisBeer> (@hugh - imo of course :) )
<hughb> yeah, maybe, but I want to see it agreed/resolved
<ChrisBeer> likewise - in fact I think it has to be or it'll keep coming up.
<hughb> you've committed something like 20 hrs/week ??!
<ChrisBeer> yeah. there is a lot of cross over, and a lot of it links in with my work hat. and the 20 hours doesn't have to be online - it might be reading, thinking, talking with others in other forums etc.
<ChrisBeer> (oh - and I have no life, and yes, my wife does yell at me a lot ;) )
<hughb> having that amount of time give is living in my book :)
<hughb> if only
<hughb> "time to give" ^^
<ChrisBeer> lol - for once in my life its better than what I'd normally waste 20 hours on. And still fit in family and work :)
<ChrisBeer> @Vagner - Brazil eh? Are you new to the list/group or long time lurker? Tell us a little about yourself :)
<Vagner> I am not new in the list. But I have a good listenr all this time, leraning a lot. I am the head of W3C Office in Brazil...
<Vagner> ... we are close to start open gov data pilot projects with the Presidency of Republic cabinet and with the State of Sao Paulo Secretary of Planning...
<ChrisBeer> Please to meet you :) I'm just passionate and in Australia :) And no good with screen names - but I've just googled you, so I won't feel quite so silly now. (should of checked the IG participants list before asking you any of that ;) )
<Vagner> ... they will the fisrt government bodies to delivery data in a open format to be reused and we are helping them to define principles, directives and technologies
<ChrisBeer> How are you finding it working from a position where others have already made some bold statements/policies in other countries? Do they reconcile easily with the political/beuracracy model in Brazil?
<ChrisBeer> @hugh night mate
<Vagner> Challenge is to put together the value chain agents: government officers, open data experts and willing-to-reuse-data civil society. Once they come to an agreement policies come out easily.
<ChrisBeer> True. The big hurdle identified in Australia is that the public sector culture of the last 200 years now has to change, and fast. The experts are on board, and the civil society now expect it. The statement has been made, and there is no turning back from open government now.
<ChrisBeer> The willing-to-reuse-data civil society angle is one that keeps coming up as well. They love to use it, but they have no idea they want it half the time, until it's provided to them. then they wonder how they ever lived without it.
<hg> hg (Hugh Glaser) is here, but sorry, only IRC, so will watch.
<ChrisBeer> same 4 me, as usual - will comment where possible :)
<josema> np, guys, sorry it's too late for you :(
<josema> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 09 December 2009
<josema> chair: josema
<Vagner> +55 is Vagner Brazil
<josema> [hugh and chris present only on IRC]
<sandro> JoseMa to scribe next time
<sandro> (Sam and Kevin not on IRC.)
<sandro> George: How do I scribe?
<Daniel_Bennett> aaee is Daniel Bennett
<sandro> George: How do I scribe?
<sandro> Sandro: Like this.
JoseMa: will scribe next meeting :)
<sandro> scribe: george
JoseMa: next meeting 1/6/2010 followed by 1/20/2010
josema: confirmed next meeting 1/6/2010
kevin: prior agreement for 12/23 meeting?
josema: minutes review - not planned
<josema> chris, is your question about meetings?
<ChrisBeer> neg - agendum 3 :)
sandro: confirmed minutes no 12/23 meeting
<josema> go ahead
<ChrisBeer> I hopefully can offer something here to get through this item quickly. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/27/40826024.pdf - OECD defines Government Data as "Public Sector Information" - �Public sector information� is broadly defined for purposes of this Recommendation as �information, including information products and services, generated, created, collected, processed, preserved, maintained, disseminated, or funded by or for the Government or public institution�
josema: agenda point - discussion of 'open'
josema: chris has provided materials on this subject - josema reading for those not on irc
<ChrisBeer> The recommendation defines in that sense, open as access. If we use those defs, then we're left with open as in standards, access = access, government data as PSI.
<ChrisBeer> And we have 30 govs + EU agreeing with the definitions.
josema: solicits comments on cb's oecd doc
george: +1 josema input in prior email thread
kevin: consistency is key
sandro: +1 cb oecd on ogd - thought that wasn't an issue, only lgd
<sandro> sandro: This seems straightforward; I thought it was Gov Linked Data that was more controversial
josema: emphasizing suggested distinction btw open as in gov and open as in data
<ChrisBeer> sorry - I had read it in threads etc that the sticking point seemed to be open as in standards/tech vs open as in policy/access
<josema> chris, let me see if I got you right: you say we should stick to the OECD for the policy side, right?
<josema> ... but that we need to come up with something else for the technical part of it, right?
kevin: response to open as in data controversy - tbl suggests being more 'open' :)
daniel: open open open - yet
another uncontrolled vocab source, wikipedia, see open
... concentrate on best practices instead of definitions
<ChrisBeer> going off thomas's issues and hughb's comments, there seems to be confusion as to the two - GLD and OGD/PSI
<josema> the old ISSUE I referred to: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/2
daniel: seems to be +1 with josema on open data thoughts
<ChrisBeer> (personally I understand the distinction no problems)
<josema> ok, thanks
brian: agrees with daniel - def can remain general and allow for different conceptions
<ChrisBeer> allthough most projects may be set well one by one, I am not so happy
<ChrisBeer> about distinguishing OGD (Open Government Data) from GLD (Government
<ChrisBeer> Linked Data) the way you do.
<ChrisBeer> GLD is just one (RDF based) kind of representing OGD. Other
<ChrisBeer> representations may be based on the named formats of OGD "XML, CSV,
<ChrisBeer> custom data formats, and/or Web APIs". To make this more confusing: RDF
<josema> I remember we also discussed The World Bank and OKF definitions by then, too
<ChrisBeer> may be serialized in a XML syntax, so GLD would be OGD if not serialized
<ChrisBeer> in Turtle?
<ChrisBeer> I would rather distinguish the general strategic topics of OGD in
<ChrisBeer> whatever technical format from the more specific topics related to some
<ChrisBeer> technical pattern.
brian: reuse other def's and work on best prac's
<ChrisBeer> sorry -that was Thomas's post on the issue for the record. Hugh asked it be added to agenda to sort out before discussion on projects went ahead.
<Daniel_Bennett> specifically linking out to all the definitions from many orgs will help people find our best practices and standards
kevin: +2 inclusiveness, whatever works towards that
<ChrisBeer> Daniel +1
<sandro> +1 Nice "This is the debate people have when they don't want to advance the ball" :-)
brian: recursive vocab loop keeps us from getting real work done
george: +1 brian/sandro
<ChrisBeer> As far as GLD goes - as I said earlier in channel before meeting. PSI/OGD isn't necessarily linked, but GLD has to be in someway OGD. Hear hear. +1
josema: reviewing Thomas's post provided by Chris
<Daniel_Bennett> fyi. we do not seem to have a presence here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government
kevin: trouble when we try to distinguish these vaguaries
george: +1 kevin - focus on tech, let the policy wonks worry about 'controlling the messag'
sandro: techies get the difference and don't want this shared concept/term problem to get in the way of that
<sandro> sandro: Sometimes it makes sense to use the Linked Data distinction, when you're focussed on that particular technology.
kevin: wholeheartedly agree sandro +1
<ChrisBeer> @ Daniel - refresh the page
<Daniel_Bennett> way to go Chris
<Daniel_Bennett> but do we need to establish a wikipedia policy?
josema: conclusion - policy side to speak to definitions with inclusive, broad language to achieve it
<Rachel> Yes, agree to adopt standard conventions
<ChrisBeer> (@ daniel - it's a valid link to a page on the topic :) )
daniel: +1 inclusion again
<josema> in fact, this is what we already did: http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/#OGD
george: proving the circular comment :)
josema: provides link to prior egov-ig art that does what is called for
<Daniel_Bennett> (@ChrisBeer - i agree that it is valid and good, but just triggers a discussion i had been hoping we would have re: wikipedia)
josema: next agenda point - wiki projects page - reading some input from team
<ChrisBeer> (@ Daniel - lol - nps )
josema: not yet fully reviewed, asks sandro's input
sandro: not sure if we haven't covered most of these topics
<Rachel> if others volunteer to draft these docs I can review/edit (per ETF mission)
josema: deadline given - input received, but not clear what forward path is, next steps, how to prioritize - other than to let volunteers run with it...
<Rachel> Daniel did such an awesome job on the last project - I thought that process worked well.
sandro: speaking for the chairs
<josema> daniel, I hope we could discuss wikipedia at the web site agendum, please!
sandro: lots of folks on listerv,
not many on the call - hope was that once different projects
were clear, we would proceed with a divide and conquer approach
to each project
... first pass was to make sure descriptions were clear, would've been nice to have more input
... with repeated prompts from chairs - not clear we're going to get more input
<Daniel_Bennett> thanks Rachel
<ChrisBeer> (FYI am wikipedia editor - happy to work within whatever group thinks best re that, may not be on IRC still for that agendum)
<josema> I wonder if we really need to distinguish between GLD and OGD in those areas based on the previous discussion
kevin: +1 sandro - key focus areas suggested, still some areas needing group participants, so goal is more participation - suggestion of 2 more days
<ChrisBeer> I thought they were perfectly clear - didn't see need to add/expand
<Daniel_Bennett> (Joe Carmel had suggested we use Wikipedia as a major focus for output which I think is really good, so your editor expertise and experience will help for the discussion.)
sandro: linked data people are wanting to contribute to linked data conversation - all the other 'open' categories are too difuse for their focused effort
joec: sandro - aren't you also interested in xforming other data to linkeddata?
sandro: son - which is it timbl? raw data now, or linked data? (both :)
joec: not going to be able to get the gov to create rdf
sandro: some parts will, some won't
george: +1000 sandro
<ChrisBeer> which gov ;)
george: gov is already doing linked data
<OwenAmbur> Would be good to post a link to the projects page on the home page: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Main_Page
joec: this group has to address what gov's are doing
<Daniel_Bennett> an aside: we should introduce the term "slow government" like the "slow food" movement, a holistic term referring to food being tasty, sustainably produced, local pref, etc. we should have "slow gov". isnt that what people think already ;-)
sandro: reifies separation idea - if you don't care about rdf, then have a csv discussion
<ChrisBeer> +1 owen
<josema> btw, all IG members should have editing access to the whole wiki (if you don't, please talk to Sandro)
joec: say to gov - put in data controls (be aware of what you're pub'ing, its accuracy), maybe i (joec) doesn't understand the role of the ig
sandro: suggesting two task forces, not separate ig's
daniel: geeks lose the human readable idea, whether rdf, microformats, html, - makes pitch for xhtml as human readable in open gov push
<ChrisBeer> points to eaves.ca - "Can I play with it" - as long as its in *A* linkable format, its good for now - rdf, xml, csv - does it matter in the scope of the IG as long as it's a linkable format?
rachel: +1 daniel
owen: (could not hear owen)
brian: +1 daniel
<Rachel> Agree w/Daniel - open govt is not just open data, but also ensuring people can understand
<ChrisBeer> +1000 daniel
<Rachel> not just machine-readable, human-readable is just as important!
george: i thought html+rdfa was the big w3c push, over xhtml now :)
<OwenAmbur> XML documents are readily rendered in human readable formats, e.g., PDF, but the reverse is not true
kevin: tbl included access point - agrees with brian/daniel/rachel on 'human readable'
<joec> "He said that the use of RDF should not require building new systems,
<joec> or changing the way site administers work, reminiscing about how many
<joec> of the original Web sites were linked back to legacy mainframe systems.
<joec> Instead, scripts can be written in Python, Perl or other languages that
<joec> can convert data in spreadsheets or relational databases into RDF for
<joec> the end-users. "You will want to leave the social processes in place,
<joec> leave the technical systems in place," he said. "
<Daniel_Bennett> note: i am not distinguishing HTML + RDFa vs. HTML vs XHTML1.0 vs. HTML5 vs. XML with XSLT vs. etc, just that everything be presented to the humans.
joec: put tbl quote for folks to review, reiterating point about xforming existing data to get to rdf
josema: so where are we? leave the group a couple days more (kevin), separate work streams/areas (sandro)?
kevin: suggest send out one last notice for final deadline before next weeks chairs call
<ChrisBeer> (Get to work (Chris) ;P )
sandro: are we hearing concensus around different groups? if the chairs are good to go, fine, but not clear to me
kevin: chairs will pull that together
owen: chairs have others in line to volunteer, chairs ask for specific volunteers
<ChrisBeer> I think time will tell - it may be that some projects meld, and others are identified as needed
kevin: conclusion - send out last call - next week chairs call, get concensus on who/what we'll proceed with
josema: ok - next agenda point -
comments on docs released in australian and us gov docs
... australia doc 159 pages long - someone on the phone can summarize for today's call? new people on board -
... sent some comments to whitehouse opengov coord via kevin
... chartered to do this, but deadlines are difficult - australia comment is 12/17 - don't know the us opengov deadline - anyone?
<josema> data.gov ideascale: http://datagov.ideascale.com/
<josema> the Australian doc: http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/
kevin: got an email from wh team, but short notice difficult at best to comment
josema: published links on irc to
... group and individual comments were sent to prior us opengov effort
@kevin - did mary provide a us data.gov ideascale date deadline?
<ChrisBeer> W/r Australia - would like to see a note of support from IG - it's not likely to change but has anyone read it? Or have thoughts on it at all?
<OwenAmbur> Australia's "Engage" report is available in StratML format at http://xml.gov/stratml/EG2.xml It contrains 13 goals and associated objectives.
<josema> I wish we had more time to review this kind of things as a group, really!
kevin: please note where your position is different or in agreement with the ig
<Daniel_Bennett> note that http://datagov.ideascale.com/ blew an error on signing on with OpenID
kevin: please look at the last input from the ig for guidelines in this effort
<josema> daniel, same as our wiki, doh! ;)
kevin: have to leave
josema: next agenda item - website - or, the 'wikipedia' discussion - take it away daniel
daniel: props to joe for the
... looking at finding web tech for egov website, mediawiki wins
<OwenAmbur> I'm working on converting the Data.gov CONOPS to StratML format but its goals and objectives are a little difficult to discern
george: (semantic) mediawiki wins - AGAIN! :-)
<ChrisBeer> (was unsure about kevins comments on last - is there any likely hood of ig comment on australia doc? or ppl will review?)
<ChrisBeer> +1 on wiki idea btw - am going to have to run - 2 am here
daniel: crowdsourcing ig ideas using this to engage with comment site
<josema> chris, no time to build consensus as group, comment was: if you are going to make a comment consistent with the group's consensus, feel free to identify yourself as a group member, if not, just leave it as a personal one
george: not sure i'm getting daniels point here about wikipedia - thought we were talking about ig using mediawiki
<Daniel_Bennett> @george- pointing out a coincidence
joec: difficult to find tech info on practices...info is dispersed across the web...everybody goes to wikipedia, so create some wikipedia pages for the ig work
george: okay, i think i'm getting you now...
<ChrisBeer> @jose nps - will pass comment to list for review first :) night all
josema: sumarrizing - so the suggestion is that we spend some effort creating/maintaining wikipedia pages that serve as authorititative sources for info relevant to the ig
joec: publishes wikipedia User page example on irc
<ChrisBeer> (thought - w3c ig user template / image as well?)
<josema> @chris wonderful
<Daniel_Bennett> use, and we think of our own pages as a staging ground to Wikipedia
<ChrisBeer> @jose - will work on such and delivery for next meeting
joec: example - pdf bad for gov (sunlight clay johnson) - instead of saying 'don't use pdf', say how to enhance it, ie. how to link into/out of - but there's *no consolidated place* to get/send info to folks
george: fractal web - fractal society -
<ChrisBeer> (wikipedia user template/icon that is
joec: elucidating the desire to provide pdf publising best practices
<josema> @chris issue is next meeting is on 6 Jan, so after the deadline :(
<Daniel_Bennett> also we can use fragment URLs from wikipedia too (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government#History )
owen: pdf->xml (hundreds in stratml) things ig should promote xml->pdf as best pract
joec: promotes source doc included with pdf, which alleviates the challenge owen refers to
<Daniel_Bennett> re: PDF linking see http://legislink.org/ - thanks to Joe
george: doesn't care about this or see this as something that needs w3c effort on
owen: xml as the way
joec: but addressing issues with what gov is doing, which is pdf
owen: tool support, native format of ms office
<Daniel_Bennett> @george - like it , cute
owen: likes the corel suite of tools because it uses xml
daniel: back to the wiki question, more specifically the use of wikipedia
<OwenAmbur> I use both the Corel and the MS suite. Corel has not been able to keep up w/re support for XML
<OwenAmbur> To me, the issue is whether this group is willing and able to suggest that it is good practice to author documents in XML format and autotmatically render them in other formats.
sandro: general use of wikipedia okay, but need to use our own wiki to be authoritative
<Daniel_Bennett> +1 Sandro
sandro: not supposed to but orig info on wikipedi
george: +1 sandro
joec: suggests that w3c needs to be that info dissemination platform for best practices - such as the pdf/xml/pdf examples
<sandro> +1 it's great to use wikipedia for outreach, for reaching a large audience, and engaging the larger community
brian: +1 on use of wikipedia that cites/links back to ig wiki
joec: new examples given - grddl, lod, etc
<Daniel_Bennett> cites- electronic cites are URLs and URL + fragment ID -- fyi my Embedded Self Cite http://ecitizenproject.org/ideafactory/embedded-self-citations
brian: wikipedia as linked data subject ID
george: getting wrist cramps
<Daniel_Bennett> is it time for a motion?
george: @daniel yes
<josema> ok, ok
<Daniel_Bennett> thanks to george for scribe.
brian: wikipedia for auth
subject, points to ig wiki for best practice
... emp should be on first two task force work
josema: first time discussion of this topic on this call - suggests that joe/daniel disseminate existing/other examples that demonstrate the idea to see what members also like the idea or have opinions or want to help with the idea
joec: wasn't sure if this was appr for this ig since it's wikipedia
josema: thinks it's worth ig member discussion, might grow this community as well
<josema> ACTION: joe to send mail to the group about wikipedia ideas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-egov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Send mail to the group about wikipedia ideas [on Joe Carmel - due 2009-12-16].
daniel: * is this idea extends what we do on our website - staging ground, outgrowth of wikipedia
george: interwiki links suggested
... dbpedia linked data specs for vocab as auth resolution of ogd/lod/lgd/etc
josema: other issues for today - speak now
daniel: us hubbub - get beth to
talk to us?
... shoutout to ecitizen launch
george: data.gov isn't a beth noveck thing, this is a different pmo - mary mcaffery is a good place to connect to linda travers (epa) and sonny bhagawolia (doi) cio's that lead this pmo - who have expressed interest in interacting with the group recently, but not followed up
<Daniel_Bennett> thanks george. was also referring to OGI stuff
<OwenAmbur> Facebook developers "garage" December 14 in DC: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=211794929514
josema: will send examples from
recent event showcasing some of what this group is
... concludes for today - next meeting 1/6/201
@josema you're welcome
josema: we're ajourned
<Daniel_Bennett> note that SVG is catching on for graphics on web sites
<sandro> Thanks josema !
<Daniel_Bennett> ok bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/you/your/ Succeeded: s/mahead/ahead/ Found Scribe: george Inferring ScribeNick: george Default Present: Sandro, +1.509.464.aaaa, +1.202.441.aabb, josema, sam_deskin, Rachel, George, +55115509aacc, +1.202.731.aadd, Vagner, Kevin, Owen, +1.202.449.aaee, Daniel_Bennett, +1.303.748.aaff, Brian, +1.410.992.aagg, joec, +1.410.975.aahh Present: Sandro +1.509.464.aaaa +1.202.441.aabb josema sam_deskin Rachel George +55115509aacc +1.202.731.aadd Vagner Kevin Owen +1.202.449.aaee Daniel_Bennett +1.303.748.aaff Brian +1.410.992.aagg joec +1.410.975.aahh WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: john, sandro) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ john Regrets: john Found Date: 09 Dec 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-egov-minutes.html People with action items: joe WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]