See also: IRC log
Jose: thanks Robin!
Jose: I'll explain how things work, please talk
to me if you have problems
... it's not mandatory to be on IRC, but it's helpful
... it makes scribing and out-of-band discussion easier
... there are details on http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Teleconferences
... we are scheduled to meet every other week
... it's hard to find a good time, rotating schedules can be done but we're
not sure they work — opinions welcome
... this time is not so good for Asia, and really bad for AU/NZ
[group is silent]
Jose: is this time okay?
Silent assent from the group
<Mercedes> It works for me
<RobertoCastaldo> should be ok for me
RESOLUTION: the telcon time stays as is
Katie: we're not allowed to use IRC bridges in (US?) government premises
<peter_krantz> http://www.mibbit.com/
John: I have independent access, otherwise I wouldn't be able to connect
Katie: I confirm that
Katie: using the RRSAgent minutes is helpful
Robin: they're generally emails after the meeting too
[enough for today's call]
Ari: Ari Schwartz, Center for Democracy and
Technology
... I work on eGov/OpenGov issues, privacy
Jose: I'm José Manuel Alonso, I work for CTIC and lead this activity as a Fellow
Kevin: Kevin Novak, The American Institute of
Architects, co-chair
... have been doing eGov as the (US?) federal level for fifteen years
<peter_krantz> Verva, the Swedish Administrative Development Agency: http://verva.se/english/
Peter: Peter Krantz, from Verva in Sweden, working on eGov and standardisation
Peter: Robin Berjon, self employed, working for long on standards, much interest in eGov
Kjetil: Kjetil Kjernsmo, Computas
... a fair share of our business is in the public sector, I've long been
involved with W3C, and previously with Opera
John: John Sheridan, The National Archives
<robin> nothing wrong with a bit of confusion :)
<josema> yep, Mercedes, this usually happens ;)
<Mercedes> Head of Online Product Strategy (nee Head of Web Team) at The National Archives. No experience of W3C and mildly confused.
John: my role is information policy, notably information reuse, interest in SemWeb
Robin: nothing wrong with a bit of confusion :)
Roberto: Roberto Castaldo, IWA-HWG
... Italian chapter, coordinator of IWA [scribe can't hear]
... I am a teacher in secondary school and in the private sector too
... also working on WCAG
... absolutely necessary to start this group
... need to outreach more about open standards to Govs
<RobertoCastaldo> I'm the coordinator of http://webaccessibile.org, an italian resource about Web accessibility
Owen: Owen Ambur, retired US civil servant with
extensive experience
... xml.gov, StratML
<josema> see http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Related_Initiatives
<pasquale> please, irc me when I can present myself
Oscar: Principal Architect at State Government
of Asturias
... first time at W3C
Katie: US Federal Gov as contractor,
... providing financial services to banking systems
... interested in usability, providing services to citizens
Vassilios: DERI IE, Semantic Web for eGov
<vassilios> www.deri.ie for an overview of DERI
Herbert: I'm Herbert Leitold, head of the
E-Government Innovation Center EGIZ
... [http://www.egiz.gv.at] which is a
joint initiative of the Austrian Federal
... Chancellery and the Graz University of Technology. EGIZ is meant to be
a
... think tank for E-Government in Austria. Today I'm also acting as a proxy
for
... Prof. Reinhard Posch who couldn't attend - Reinhard is the Austrian CIO.
[Pasquale introduces himself on IRC]
<pasquale> Pasquale Popolizio, IWA-HWG, I'm a Web accessibility specialist and
<pasquale> a Web Semantic researcher, from Naples, Italy, EU.
<pasquale> I work for University of Naples Federico II for its e-learning program
<pasquale> http://www.federica.unina.it
<pasquale> and for FORMEZ
<pasquale> http://www.formez.it
<pasquale> a Government Agency for education,
<pasquale> or evaluating the Web accessibility of Regional
<pasquale> Government of Campania Web sites.
<pasquale> I also participate into W3C WAI Education & Outreach WG, Internationalization (I18N)
<pasquale> Core Group and HTML WG.
<pasquale> I created and maintain the Italian resource about Sem Web, websemantico.org,
<pasquale> where you can find articles and Italian translation about Sem Web.
<pasquale> My desire: an accessible Web more Semantic, and a Semantic Web more accessible.
<pasquale> linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pasqualepopolizio
<pasquale> hi all, and thank you ;-)
Kevin:the three main topic areas are outlined
in the charter
... we should focus first on use cases and research that already exist
... there are already quite a few people working this area
<josema> some topics:
<josema> [[ * Work and practicalities
<josema> * Avoiding scope problems
<josema> * Identification of challenges
<josema> * Charter deliverables
<josema> (see: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter#deliverables)
<josema> * W3C process and Group Notes
<josema> (see: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)
<josema> * Task Forces coordination]]
Kevin: by the end of this year we could develop an issues paper for the following work
Jose: a year is short, so we need to be very
focused and scope our work clearly
... picking a few very specific use cases from which to draw requirements by
the end of the year
... and based on that try to tackle those problems
... this will be complicated, eGov is a huge topic
... we are not that many to tackle so many issues
... the question: how do you envision the group's work?
Jose: we have an example here in the EU of a
website compiling a lot of information on eGov
... but it's difficult to extract the most common issues that need to be
solved
... the charter is quite ambitious
... we need to narrow down the scope of those three areas so that it's
manageable
<peter_krantz> http://www.epractice.eu/
Robin: agree, we should narrow the scope
early
... takes time to produce just one document
Ari: I agree, it can take a lot of time to produce W3C documents, and it can take a lot of time to work on eGov issue, so we have potential catastrophe here
Jose: Chris will coordinate the first TF "Usage of Web Standards", Ari "Transparency and Participation", and Oscar "Seamless Integration of Data"
<josema> Chris Testa, USHMM; http://www.ushmm.org/
Oscar: I completely agree about the scope issues, so I would say that we should first make an overview of different areas
[someone is breathing into their phone]
Oscar: we need to be very specific, otherwise the group is going to get lost
[I'm not sure that's exactly what he said, someone was enacting Darth Vader at the same time]
Ari: there's been a lot of discussion about e-Democracy and many projects, and narrowing the focus to where we can be most useful as a group
Kevin: at least for the first year, though we have three TFs we believe it is best to have the entire IG meet as one to encourage discussion and focus
Jose: we were reviewing different approaches, and we saw a number of docs being Foo Use Cases & Requirements
<josema> example: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/
<josema> different example: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/
Jose: then we have "Literature Review"
document, which take a different approach
Kjetil: the POWDER UC is mostly targeted
towards developing a very specific technology, and used as a way to check
that the technology solution matched the requirements
... for POWDER it was useful
Robin: XBC use cases, not to produce technical
solution?
... integrating views of different stakeholders
... even if not all the use cases are there, useful enough as a start
Oscar: we all have different backgrounds, and
that should help us to have a more general approach
... we should all make a list of use cases, and see which ones we pick. And
then later produce useful standards
... so we start general and get more specific
Kevin: agreed, and it should all be posted to the wiki (and to email)
<scribe> ACTION: Oscar to open a new section in the wiki for use cases for his TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-egov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Oscar
<scribe> ACTION: Ari to open a new section in the wiki for use cases for his TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-egov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Open a new section in the wiki for use cases for his TF [on Ari Schwartz - due 2008-07-02].
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to open a new section in the wiki for use cases for his TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-egov-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Chris
Ari: how far do we intend to take public participation?
Jose: for those who have worked in a WG before,
you'll know that the tools have been developed to do Rec-track work, in
private
... this group is different, and the tools have had to be reconfigured,
things are changing
... other Groups working in public, too
... I myself would like this group be as open as possible
... lower every barrier that can lowered
... the Process creates formalities, but everyone is welcome nevertheless
... we are encouraging Invited Experts
... we have a very understanding W3M wrt IEs
... I hope you don't mind that people will have access to everything
... only the group members can write, but everyone can read (and membership
is open anyway)
... I was thinking about generating our documents from the Wiki, everyone
could see the evolution of the draft
... the minutes of this call are logged publicly, and will be emailed right
after
Kevin: I think that the openness is very
important, many people might not have the financial option of participating,
and being public helps make sure that we are accountable to our
requirements
... I hope we can get smart people out there to join as IEs
<vassilios> Could someone prepare an invitation email for promoting these kind of participation?
John: I agree with that, but I would like to
note that if you're an official working for a govt there may be some things
that you cannot say publicly
... there are things that we would be willing to share if not attributable,
off the record, and some of those might be amongst the more interesting
<josema> Yep, Vassilios, any specific topics you'd like to addressed there?
Kevin: I very much understand that point, and we might develop a way to have a backchannel for those situations
Jose: you can always ask the scribe to take you
off the record
... we can also have a separate mailing list or a member-only wiki
... if there is value for that, I can set it up
Owen: I have a very strong preference for openness, especially since we're working on Transparency & Participation
<vassilios> Returning back to the content, could we introduce a round where WG participants could send to the TF leaders ideas for possible inclusion in future discussions?
<robin> you can always propose agenda items on the mailing list
Jose: let's talk about the liaisons
Kevin: OASIS is asking that we don't duplicate
efforts, and their eGov activity is being resurrected
... we talked Monday about that and about potential synergies
<josema> some here: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Related_Initiatives
<josema> some more here: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter#coordination.external
Kevin: we could co-lead conferences or
events
... we could meet regularly, share docs
Jose: we are chartered to talk to other
organisations
... usual discussion is "we would love to chat with you"
... the problem of course is one of scope
<vassilios> http://www.semic.eu/semic/
<vassilios> http://osor.eu/
Jose: governments expect from us a suite of
open standards that would help them achieve their goals
... they need an integrated solution to their problems
<josema> http://www.oasis-egov.org/
Jose: OASIS had a Technical Committee (TC),
kinda W3C WG, but switched to a less technical approach
... their charter looks very similar to ours
... that is not because one copied on the other, but simply because we are
getting our information from the same sources and hearing same challenges
... there is common ground that could be explored
... they also have their first call this week
... ongoing discussion with them
Kevin: any opinion?
Peter: I think it's important to collaborate to avoid duplicate standards which create confusion
<RobertoCastaldo> Completely agree, standards cannot be duplicated
John: if we are missing links, it should tell us who we want to bring into this group
<robin> in other groups there are "Liaison Officers"
<robin> I think that joint work can be great but you still want one person to be responsible for the contact so that the link isn't dropped IMHO
Owen: we should focus on common objectives
... I would be more than happy to map to StratML this group and other groups
so that we can see common goals
John: we should be clear about where we as individuals are participating elsewhere, that can help a lot in creating links
<RobertoCastaldo> agree
Kevin: I think that's a great idea, are people open to posting it to the wiki
John: completely open about that
<ari> agree
<Mercedes> Sorry, I have to go. Useful discussion though.
Jose: we should talk about the status of
liaisons regularly
... I will talk to the OASIS people about StratML
Owen: It's under the auspices of AIIM but OASIS
has expertise that
... should be brought to bear as well.
Jose: I will be on holidays most of July, I
don't know how the group feels about moving ahead without me
... I personally encourage you to work
... the telcon is scheduled, the bots will work, the only possible issue
could be minutes
<johnlsheridan> Lets go for another in July
RESOLUTION: we will have our regular meetings without josema, next: July 9th
Kevin: I encourage everyone to use email and the wiki so that we don't lose momentum between calls
[MEETING ADJOURNED]