Chatlog 2009-12-09

From W3C eGovernment Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

13:59:56 <Zakim> T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has now started
14:00:03 <Zakim> +??P0
14:01:10 <Zakim> +martin_spain
14:01:24 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:01:46 <Zakim> +??P14
14:01:49 <Zakim> + +1.509.464.aaaa
14:01:56 <Zakim> + +1.202.441.aabb
14:02:29 <josema> zakim, ??P0 is sam
14:02:31 <Zakim> +sam; got it
14:02:51 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Rachel
14:02:51 <Zakim> +Rachel; got it
14:02:53 <josema> chair: josema
14:02:56 <sandro> zakim, aabb is George
14:02:56 <Zakim> +George; got it
14:02:57 <josema> regrets: john
14:03:04 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see sam, josema, Sandro, ??P14, Rachel, George
14:03:25 <Zakim> + +55115509aacc
14:03:57 <Vagner> +55 is Vagner Brazil
14:04:03 <Zakim> + +1.202.731.aadd
14:04:10 <sandro> zakim, aacc is Vagner
14:04:10 <Zakim> +Vagner; got it
14:04:12 <josema> [hugh and chris present only on IRC]
14:04:20 <sandro> zakim, aadd is Kevin
14:04:20 <Zakim> +Kevin; got it
14:04:30 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see sam, josema, Sandro, ??P14, Rachel, George, Vagner, Kevin
14:04:58 <sandro> zakim, ??P14 is Owen
14:04:58 <Zakim> +Owen; got it
14:05:25 <josema> agenda?
14:06:29 <josema> zakim, next agendum
14:06:29 <Zakim> agendum 1. "scribe" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: Scribe
14:06:46 <OwenAmbur> OwenAmbur has joined #egov
14:07:33 <sandro> JoseMa to scribe next time
14:08:21 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
14:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see sam, josema, Sandro, Owen, Rachel, George, Vagner, Kevin
14:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see OwenAmbur, Rachel, josema, Zakim, hg, Vagner, hughb, ChrisBeer, RRSAgent, trackbot, sandro
14:09:14 <sandro> (Sam and Kevin not on IRC.)
14:10:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Daniel_Bennett has joined #egov
14:10:51 <sandro> George: How do I scribe?
14:10:53 <Zakim> + +1.202.449.aaee
14:11:09 <Daniel_Bennett> aaee is Daniel Bennett
14:11:21 <josema> zakim, aaee is Daniel Bennett
14:11:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aaee is Daniel Bennett', josema
14:11:51 <josema> zakim, aaee is Daniel_Bennett
14:11:52 <Zakim> +Daniel_Bennett; got it
14:12:52 <george> george has joined #egov
14:12:58 <sandro> George: How do I scribe?
14:13:02 <sandro> Sandro: Like this.
14:13:03 <george> JoseMa: will scribe next meeting :)
14:13:10 <josema> agenda?
14:13:14 <sandro> scribe: george
14:13:26 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:13:26 <Zakim> agendum 2. "agenda adjustments, next meetings" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: Agenda adjustments, Next meetings
<sandro> summary: Next Meeting is January 6.  See .
14:14:27 <george> JoseMa: next meeting 1/6/2010 followed by 1/20/2010
14:15:05 <george> josema: confirmed next meeting 1/6/2010
14:15:01 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:15:25 <sandro>
14:15:01 <Zakim> agendum 3. "OGD/LGD and the meaning of "open"" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: OGD/LGD and the meaning of "open"
<sandro> summary: General agreement not to argue much about terms; let's just refer to other people's definitions.   And on "OGD" vs "GLD", GLD is a subset of OGD that has some different people; some disagreement about how much to separate the discussions/communities.
14:15:10 <ChrisBeer> +q
14:15:56 <george> kevin: prior agreement for 12/23 meeting?
14:16:10 <george> josema: minutes review - not planned
14:16:14 <josema> chris, is you question about meetings?
14:16:19 <josema> s/you/your
14:16:29 <ChrisBeer> neg - agendum 3 :)
14:16:33 <george> sandro: confirmed minutes no 12/23 meeting 
14:16:33 <josema> ok
14:16:40 <sandro> see
14:16:44 <josema> go mahead
14:16:50 <josema> s/mahead/ahead
14:17:17 <ChrisBeer> I hopefully can offer something here to get through this item quickly. - 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"
14:17:18 <george> josema: agenda point - discussion of 'open' 
14:17:27 <george> george: sigh
14:17:51 <Zakim> + +1.303.748.aaff
14:18:20 <george> josema: chris has provided materials on this subject - josema reading for those not on irc
14:18:40 <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.
14:18:44 <sandro> zakim, aaff is Brian
14:18:44 <Zakim> +Brian; got it
14:19:29 <ChrisBeer> And we have 30 govs + EU agreeing with the definitions.
14:19:37 <george> josema: solicits comments on cb's oecd doc
14:19:52 <george> george: +1 josema input in prior email thread
14:20:35 <george> kevin: consistency is key
14:21:22 <george> sandro: +1 cb oecd on ogd - thought that wasn't an issue, only lgd
14:21:33 <sandro> sandro: This seems straightforward; I thought it was Gov Linked Data that was more controversial
14:22:12 <george> josema: emphasizing suggested distinction btw open as in gov and open as in data
14:22:18 <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
14:22:50 <josema> chris, let me see if I got you right: you say we should stick to the OECD for the policy side, right?
14:22:57 <ChrisBeer> correct
14:23:09 <josema> ... but that we need to come up with something else for the technical part of it, right?
14:23:12 <george> kevin: response to open as in data controversy - tbl suggests being more 'open' :) 
14:23:53 <george> daniel: open open open  - yet another uncontrolled vocab source, wikipedia, see open gov 
14:24:12 <george> daniel: concentrate on best practices instead of definitions
14:24:19 <ChrisBeer> going off thomas's issues and hughb's comments, there seems to be confusion as to the two - GLD and OGD/PSI
14:24:26 <josema> the old ISSUE I referred to:
14:24:45 <george> daniel: seems to be +1 with josema on open data thoughts
14:24:55 <ChrisBeer> (personally I understand the distinction no problems)
14:25:06 <josema> ok, thanks
14:25:32 <george> brian: agrees with daniel - def can remain general and allow for different conceptions
14:26:33 <ChrisBeer> allthough most projects may be set well one by one, I am not so happy
14:26:33 <ChrisBeer> about distinguishing OGD (Open Government Data) from GLD (Government
14:26:33 <ChrisBeer> Linked Data) the way you do.
14:26:33 <ChrisBeer> GLD is just one (RDF based) kind  of representing OGD. Other
14:26:33 <ChrisBeer> representations may be based on the named formats of OGD "XML, CSV,
14:26:34 <ChrisBeer> custom data formats, and/or Web APIs". To make this more confusing: RDF
14:26:34 <josema> I remember we also discussed The World Bank and OKF definitions by then, too
14:26:35 <ChrisBeer> may be serialized in a XML syntax, so GLD would be OGD if not serialized
14:26:37 <ChrisBeer> in Turtle?
14:26:39 <ChrisBeer> I would rather distinguish the general strategic topics of OGD in
14:26:41 <george> daniel: inclusive
14:26:41 <ChrisBeer> whatever technical format from the more specific topics related to some
14:26:44 <ChrisBeer> technical pattern.
14:26:54 <george> brian: reuse other def's and work on best prac's
14:27:19 <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.
14:27:31 <Daniel_Bennett> specifically linking out to all the definitions from many orgs will help people find our best practices and standards
14:28:07 <george> kevin: +2 inclusiveness, whatever works towards that
14:28:10 <ChrisBeer> Daniel +1
14:29:10 <sandro> +1 Nice    "This is the debate people have when they don't want to advance the ball"   :-)
14:29:17 <george> brian: recursive vocab loop keeps us from getting real work done
14:29:48 <george> george: +1 brian/sandro
14:29:53 <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
14:30:16 <george> josema: reviewing Thomas's post provided by Chris
14:30:39 <Daniel_Bennett> fyi. we do not seem to have a presence here -
14:31:07 <george> kevin: trouble when we try to distinguish these vaguaries
14:31:40 <george> george: +1 kevin - focus on tech, let the policy wonks worry about 'controlling the messag'
14:32:25 <george> sandro: techies get the difference and don't want this shared concept/term problem to get in the way of that
14:32:26 <sandro> sandro: Sometimes it makes sense to use the Linked Data distinction, when you're focussed on that particular technology.
14:32:37 <george> kevin: wholeheartedly agree sandro +1
14:32:42 <ChrisBeer> @ Daniel - refresh the page
14:33:04 <Daniel_Bennett> way to go Chris
14:33:31 <Daniel_Bennett> but do we need to establish a wikipedia policy?
14:33:33 <george> josema: conclusion - policy side to speak to definitions with inclusive, broad language to achieve it
14:33:34 <Rachel> Yes, agree to adopt standard conventions
14:34:17 <ChrisBeer> (@ daniel - it's a valid link to a page on the topic :) )
14:34:21 <george> daniel: +1 inclusion again
14:34:31 <josema> in fact, this is what we already did:
14:34:49 <george> george: proving the circular comment :)
14:35:17 <george> josema: provides link to prior egov-ig art that does what is called for
14:35:19 <josema> agenda?
14:35:32 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:35:32 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, josema
14:35:37 <josema> q?
14:35:43 <josema> ack chrisbeer
14:35:49 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:35:49 <Zakim> agendum 4. "reviewing the projects page" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: reviewing the projects page
<sandro> summary: Final comments on [[Projects]] due this weekend; next week we'll send out a signup/survey.
14:35:56 <josema>
14:36:44 <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)
14:36:44 <george> josema: next agenda point - wiki projects page - reading some input from team
14:37:23 <ChrisBeer> (@ Daniel - lol - nps )
14:37:34 <george> josema: not yet fully reviewed, asks sandro's input
14:37:56 <george> sandro: not sure if we haven't covered most of these topics
14:38:39 <Rachel> if others volunteer to draft these docs I can review/edit (per ETF mission)
14:38:52 <george> 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...
14:39:01 <Rachel> Daniel did such an awesome job on the last project - I thought that process worked well.
14:39:03 <george> sandro: speaking for the chairs
14:39:23 <josema> daniel, I hope we could discuss wikipedia at the web site agendum, please!
14:39:40 <george> 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
14:39:46 <Zakim> + +1.410.992.aagg
14:40:02 <george> sandro: first pass was to make sure descriptions were clear, would've been nice to have more input
14:40:24 <george> sandro: with repeated prompts from chairs - not clear we're going to get more input
14:40:24 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks Rachel
14:40:51 <ChrisBeer> (FYI am wikipedia editor - happy to work within whatever group thinks best re that, may not be on IRC still for that agendum)
14:41:08 <josema> I wonder if we really need to distinguish between GLD and OGD in those areas based on the previous discussion
14:41:18 <george> kevin: +1 sandro - key focus areas suggested, still some areas needing group participants, so goal is more participation - suggestion of 2 more days
14:41:24 <joec> joec has joined #egov
14:41:32 <ChrisBeer> I thought they were perfectly clear - didn't see need to add/expand
14:42:24 <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.)
14:42:27 <george> sandro: linked data people are wanting to contribute to linked data conversation - all the other 'open' categories are too difuse for their focused effort
14:42:34 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
14:42:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see sam, josema, Sandro, Owen, Rachel, George, Vagner, Kevin, Daniel_Bennett, Brian (muted), +1.410.992.aagg
14:42:36 <josema> zakim, aagg is joec
14:42:36 <Zakim> +joec; got it
14:43:07 <george> joec: sandro - aren't you also interested in xforming other data to linkeddata?
14:43:27 <george> sandro: son - which is it timbl? raw data now, or linked data? (both :)
14:43:39 <george> joec: not going to be able to get the gov to create rdf
14:43:47 <george> sandro: some parts will, some won't
14:43:54 <george> george: +1000 sandro
14:43:58 <ChrisBeer> which gov ;)
14:44:10 <george> george: gov is already doing linked data
14:44:25 <OwenAmbur> Would be good to post a link to the projects page on the home page:
14:44:25 <george> joec: this group has to address what gov's are doing
14:44:32 <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 ;-)
14:45:02 <george> sandro: reifies separation idea - if you don't care about rdf, then have a csv discussion
14:45:05 <ChrisBeer> +1 owen
14:45:47 <josema> btw, all IG members should have editing access to the whole wiki (if you don't, please talk to Sandro)
14:46:02 <george> 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
14:46:22 <george> sandro: suggesting two task forces, not separate ig's
14:47:20 <george> daniel: geeks lose the human readable idea, whether rdf, microformats, html, - makes pitch for xhtml as human readable in open gov push
14:47:33 <ChrisBeer> points to - "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?
14:47:38 <george> rachel: +1 daniel
14:47:52 <george> owen: (could not hear owen)
14:47:57 <george> brian: +1 daniel
14:48:00 <Rachel> Agree w/Daniel - open govt is not just open data, but also ensuring people can understand
14:48:12 <ChrisBeer> +1000 daniel
14:48:15 <Rachel> not just machine-readable, human-readable is just as important!
14:48:26 <george> george: i thought html+rdfa was the big w3c push, over xhtml now :)
14:48:43 <joec>
14:48:52 <OwenAmbur> XML documents are readily rendered in human readable formats, e.g., PDF, but the reverse is not true
14:48:58 <george> kevin: tbl included access point - agrees with brian/daniel/rachel on 'human readable'
14:49:17 <joec> "He said that the use of RDF should not require building new systems, 
14:49:17 <joec> 	or changing the way site administers work, reminiscing about how many 
14:49:17 <joec> 	of the original Web sites were linked back to legacy mainframe systems. 
14:49:17 <joec> 	Instead, scripts can be written in Python, Perl or other languages that 
14:49:17 <joec> 	can convert data in spreadsheets or relational databases into RDF for 
14:49:18 <joec> 	the end-users. "You will want to leave the social processes in place, 
14:49:20 <joec> 	leave the technical systems in place," he said. "
14:50:16 <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.
14:50:33 <george> joec: put tbl quote for folks to review, reiterating point about xforming existing data to get to rdf
14:51:06 <george> josema: so where are we? leave the group a couple days more (kevin), separate work streams/areas (sandro)?
14:51:28 <george> kevin: suggest send out one last notice for final deadline before next weeks chairs call
14:51:49 <ChrisBeer> (Get to work (Chris) ;P )
14:52:01 <george> sandro: are we hearing concensus around different groups? if the chairs are good to go, fine, but not clear to me 
14:52:14 <george> kevin: chairs will pull that together
14:52:37 <george> owen: chairs have others in line to volunteer, chairs ask for specific volunteers
14:52:39 <ChrisBeer> I think time will tell - it may be that some projects meld, and others are identified as needed
14:53:21 <joec> joec has left #egov
14:53:21 <george> kevin: conclusion - send out last call - next week chairs call, get concensus on who/what we'll proceed with
14:53:34 <joec> joec has joined #egov
14:53:34 <josema> agenda?
14:53:47 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:53:48 <Zakim> agendum 5. "commenting on AU, USA docs" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: commenting on AU, USA docs
14:54:13 <george> josema: ok - next agenda point - comments on docs released in australian and us gov docs
14:54:45 <george> josema: australia doc 159 pages long - someone on the phone can summarize for today's call? new people on board - 
14:55:01 <george> josema: sent some comments to whitehouse opengov coord via kevin
14:55:54 <george> josema: chartered to do this, but deadlines are difficult - australia comment is 12/17 - don't know the us opengov deadline - anyone?
14:55:59 <josema> ideascale:
14:56:23 <josema> the Australian doc:
14:56:29 <george> kevin: got an email from wh team, but short notice difficult at best to comment
14:56:38 <george> josema: published links on irc to both docs
14:58:05 <george> josema: group and individual comments were sent to prior us opengov effort
14:58:25 <george> @kevin - did mary provide a us ideascale date deadline?
14:58:32 <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?
14:58:44 <OwenAmbur> Australia's "Engage" report is available in StratML format at It contrains 13 goals and associated objectives.
14:58:45 <josema> I wish we had more time to review this kind of things as a group, really!
14:58:49 <george> kevin: please note where your position is different or in agreement with the ig
14:59:09 <Daniel_Bennett> note that blew an error on signing on with OpenID
14:59:22 <george> kevin: please look at the last input from the ig for guidelines in this effort
14:59:31 <josema> daniel, same as our wiki, doh! ;)
14:59:45 <josema> agenda?
14:59:54 <Zakim> -Kevin
14:59:56 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
14:59:56 <Zakim> agendum 6. "web site" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: Web Site, Wikipedia
14:59:59 <george> kevin: have to leave
15:00:17 <george> josema: next agenda item - website - or, the 'wikipedia' discussion - take it away daniel
15:00:28 <george> daniel: props to joe for the idea
15:00:53 <george> daniel: looking at finding web tech for egov website, mediawiki wins
15:00:53 <OwenAmbur> I'm working on converting the CONOPS to StratML format but its goals and objectives are a little difficult to discern
15:01:14 <george> george: (semantic) mediawiki wins - AGAIN! :-)
15:01:19 <ChrisBeer> (was unsure about kevins comments on last - is there any likely hood of ig comment on australia doc? or ppl will review?)
15:02:05 <ChrisBeer> +1 on wiki idea btw - am going to have to run - 2 am here
15:03:01 <george> daniel: crowdsourcing ig ideas using this to engage with comment site
15:03:08 <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
15:03:21 <george> george: not sure i'm getting daniels point here about wikipedia - thought we were talking about ig using mediawiki
15:03:58 <Daniel_Bennett> @george- pointing out a coincidence
15:04:24 <george> joec: difficult to find tech info on is dispersed across the web...everybody goes to wikipedia, so create some wikipedia pages for the ig work
15:04:35 <george> george: okay, i think i'm getting you now...
15:04:54 <joec>
15:05:14 <ChrisBeer> @jose nps - will pass comment to list for review first :) night all
15:05:22 <george> 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
15:05:45 <george> joec: publishes wikipedia User page example on irc
15:05:52 <ChrisBeer> (thought - w3c ig user template / image as well?)
15:06:01 <josema> @chris wonderful
15:06:48 <Daniel_Bennett> use, and we think of our own pages as a staging ground to Wikipedia
15:06:56 <ChrisBeer> @jose - will work on such and delivery for next meeting
15:07:19 <george> 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
15:07:28 <george> george: fractal web - fractal society - 
15:07:32 <ChrisBeer> (wikipedia user template/icon that is
15:08:02 <george> joec: elucidating the desire to provide pdf publising best practices
15:08:03 <josema> @chris issue is next meeting is on 6 Jan, so after the deadline :(
15:08:37 <Daniel_Bennett> also we can use fragment URLs from wikipedia too (e.g. )
15:08:41 <josema> rrsagent, pointer?
15:08:41 <RRSAgent> See
15:08:45 <george> owen: pdf->xml (hundreds in stratml) things ig should promote xml->pdf as best pract
15:08:47 <josema> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:08:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate josema
15:09:09 <george> joec: promotes source doc included with pdf, which alleviates the challenge owen refers to
15:09:14 <Zakim> + +1.410.975.aahh
15:09:40 <Daniel_Bennett>  re: PDF linking see - thanks to Joe
15:09:45 <george> george: doesn't care about this or see this as something that needs w3c effort on
15:10:29 <george> owen: xml as the way
15:10:44 <george> joec: but addressing issues with what gov is doing, which is pdf
15:11:22 <george> owen: tool support, native format of ms office
15:11:58 <george> joec: <open><close></close></open>
15:12:19 <Daniel_Bennett> @george - like it , cute
15:12:28 <george> owen: likes the corel suite of tools because it uses xml
15:12:57 <josema> q?
15:13:16 <george> daniel: back to the wiki question, more specifically the use of wikipedia
15:13:25 <OwenAmbur> I use both the Corel and the MS suite.  Corel has not been able to keep up w/re support for XML
15:14:22 <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.
15:15:12 <george> sandro: general use of wikipedia okay, but need to use our own wiki to be authoritative
15:15:58 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 Sandro
15:16:04 <george> sandro: not supposed to but orig info on wikipedi
15:16:14 <george> george: +1 sandro
15:17:32 <george> joec: suggests that w3c needs to be that info dissemination platform for best practices - such as the pdf/xml/pdf examples 
15:17:33 <george> brian
15:17:38 <sandro> +1 it's great to use wikipedia for outreach, for reaching a large audience, and engaging the larger community
15:18:14 <josema> zakim, list attendees
15:18:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Sandro, +1.509.464.aaaa, +1.202.441.aabb, josema, sam, Rachel, George, +55115509aacc, +1.202.731.aadd, Vagner, Kevin, Owen,
15:18:15 <george> brian: +1 on use of wikipedia that cites/links back to ig wiki
15:18:18 <Zakim> ... +1.202.449.aaee, Daniel_Bennett, +1.303.748.aaff, Brian, +1.410.992.aagg, joec, +1.410.975.aahh
15:18:59 <george> joec: new examples given - grddl, lod, etc
15:19:26 <josema> agenda?
15:19:27 <Daniel_Bennett> cites- electronic cites are URLs and URL + fragment ID -- fyi my Embedded Self Cite
15:19:28 <george> brian: wikipedia as linked data subject ID
15:20:02 <george> george: getting wrist cramps
15:20:04 <Daniel_Bennett> is it time for a motion?
15:20:12 <george> george: @daniel yes
15:20:20 <josema> ok, ok
15:20:21 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks to george for scribe. 
15:20:27 <josema> +1
15:20:33 <hg> +1
15:21:04 <george> brian: wikipedia for auth subject, points to ig wiki for best practice
15:21:54 <george> brian: emp should be on first two task force work
15:23:25 <george> 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
15:23:55 <george> joec: wasn't sure if this was appr for this ig since it's wikipedia
15:24:14 <george> josema: thinks it's worth ig member discussion, might grow this community as well
15:24:36 <josema> ACTION: joe to send mail to the group about wikipedia ideas
15:24:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Send mail to the group about wikipedia ideas [on Joe Carmel - due 2009-12-16].
15:25:24 <george> daniel: * is this idea extends what we do on our website - staging ground, outgrowth of wikipedia 
15:25:26 <josema> agenda?
15:25:34 <george> george: interwiki links suggested by daniel?
15:26:07 <george> george: dbpedia linked data specs for vocab as auth resolution of ogd/lod/lgd/etc 
15:26:09 <josema> zakim, take up next agendum
15:26:09 <Zakim> agendum 7. "what's going / coming up" taken up [from josema]
<sandro> topic: what's going / coming up
15:26:19 <george> josema: other issues for today - speak now
15:26:36 <george> daniel: us hubbub - get beth to talk to us? 
15:27:11 <george> daniel: shoutout to ecitizen launch
15:28:12 <george> george: 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
15:29:01 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks george. was also referring to OGI stuff
15:29:02 <OwenAmbur> Facebook developers "garage" December 14 in DC:
15:29:03 <george> josema: will send examples from recent event showcasing some of what this group is evangelizing
15:29:19 <george> josema: concludes for today - next meeting 1/6/201
15:29:27 <george> @josema you're welcome
15:29:35 <Zakim> -Brian
15:29:37 <Zakim> - +1.410.975.aahh
15:29:37 <josema> [ADJOURNED]
15:29:38 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:29:40 <george> josema: we're ajourned
15:29:41 <Zakim> -sam
15:29:42 <Daniel_Bennett> note that SVG is catching on for graphics on web sites
15:29:44 <Zakim> -Rachel
15:29:45 <Vagner> bye
15:29:45 <Zakim> -George
15:29:45 <sandro> Thanks josema !
15:29:46 <Zakim> -joec
15:29:48 <Daniel_Bennett> ok bye
15:29:48 <Zakim> -josema
15:29:51 <Zakim> -Owen
15:29:58 <Zakim> -Daniel_Bennett
15:30:02 <josema> rrsagent, make minutes
15:30:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate josema
15:30:15 <sandro> george, there's a problem with some weird characters someone pasted.   I'll fix it now.
15:31:32 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:31:32 <RRSAgent> See
15:32:06 <Zakim> T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has ended
15:32:07 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, +1.509.464.aaaa, +1.202.441.aabb, josema, sam, Rachel, George, +55115509aacc, +1.202.731.aadd, Vagner, Kevin, Owen, +1.202.449.aaee, Daniel_Bennett,
15:32:10 <Zakim> ... +1.303.748.aaff, Brian, +1.410.992.aagg, joec, +1.410.975.aahh