IRC log of egov on 2008-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #egov
13:59:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:59:53 [josema]
trackbot, start telcon
13:59:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:59 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be EGOV
13:59:59 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:00:00 [trackbot]
Meeting: eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference
14:00:00 [trackbot]
Date: 17 December 2008
14:00:07 [josema]
chair: john, kevin
14:00:15 [josema]
regrets: owen, martin, kjetil
14:01:02 [josema]
regrets+ rinke
14:01:09 [josema]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:09 [Zakim]
T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has not yet started, josema
14:01:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, josema, Rachel, trackbot, kjetil
14:01:16 [Zakim]
T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has now started
14:01:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.488.aaaa
14:01:25 [josema]
zakim, call josema-office
14:01:25 [Zakim]
ok, josema; the call is being made
14:01:26 [Zakim]
14:02:05 [josema]
zakim, aaaa is chris
14:02:05 [Zakim]
+chris; got it
14:02:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.464.aabb
14:02:48 [josema]
aabb is rachel
14:02:57 [josema]
zakim, aabb is rachel
14:02:57 [Zakim]
+rachel; got it
14:03:41 [john]
john has joined #eGov
14:04:55 [Zakim]
14:06:59 [josema]
scribe: josema
14:07:46 [josema]
agenda+ agenda adjustments
14:07:56 [josema]
agenda+ outline of document
14:08:04 [josema]
agenda+ open actions
14:08:07 [josema]
agenda+ next meeting
14:08:21 [josema]
14:08:46 [josema]
josema: scribing as usual... oh, well...
14:08:50 [josema]
14:09:12 [kevin]
kevin has joined #egov
14:10:07 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
14:10:07 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "agenda adjustments" taken up [from josema]
14:10:35 [josema]
john: any?
14:10:56 [josema]
josema: reminding people of dates and location of 2nd F2F
14:11:04 [josema]
... proposed 12-13 March at AIA in DC, USA
14:11:09 [chris]
chris has joined #egov
14:11:13 [josema]
... please, send feedback
14:11:16 [josema]
chris: good for me
14:11:42 [josema]
rachel: good for me, hope I could find funding to go there
14:12:33 [josema]
john: please, let us know if we can help to justify the importance of the trip
14:12:41 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
14:12:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "outline of document" taken up [from josema]
14:13:14 [josema]
14:14:03 [john]
josema: we have outline, not spectacular yet, outline taken from relevant messages from mailing list, use cases and wiki
14:14:54 [john]
josema: difficult to categorise the issues, we have many different dimensions of view
14:16:08 [john]
josema: some conversation are out of scope for W3C as policy related. Aim to show how to use W3C standards in a good way
14:16:48 [john]
josema: every use case is relevant in several areas, then we repeat the dimensions problem
14:19:00 [john]
josema: example with transparency - not a technical topic, so changed to open government data
14:19:47 [john]
chris: whatabout social media - how to nail that from policy versus standards?
14:21:07 [john]
chris: we could surface, what are standards that underpin web 2.0 sites
14:21:39 [john]
chris: want to see building of the business case for those at policy level
14:23:19 [josema]
john: another relevant point is how government can make good use of this
14:23:29 [josema]
... 2.0 stuff to do better decision making
14:23:52 [josema]
... SE taking over EU Presidency, it's my understanding they have much interest on this
14:24:02 [josema]
14:24:18 [josema]
... endorses the point you are making, problem is not about technology
14:25:02 [john]
chris: how does W3C look at social media issues?
14:26:14 [john]
josema: what if you are putting video on youtube, then you have issue with content accessibility
14:26:30 [john]
josema: what about data portability?
14:27:21 [john]
josema: these issues have been discussed for 3 years in W3C
14:28:02 [john]
josema: depending on views of members, will be a basis for charter
14:28:16 [josema]
rachel: I'm having hard time separating policy from standards
14:28:33 [josema]
... in the US, new government will make greater use of these tools
14:29:20 [josema]
... maybe we should also consider the idea of what is doable and what is not?
14:29:45 [josema]
... 2.0 is all about enabling, how to help government structure their data so that allow people
14:29:59 [josema]
... to access that data to find the answers to their questions
14:30:08 [josema]
... help people to help themselve
14:30:14 [josema]
14:30:19 [josema]
14:30:34 [josema]
john: agree, difficult to separate, very related
14:30:50 [josema]
... but in terms of the Note, what do we want as headings?
14:31:06 [josema]
... policy-like vs. more technology-like
14:31:14 [josema]
... I can give example
14:31:30 [josema]
... say US gov has to decide what information to keep ling-term, what to destroy
14:31:50 [josema]
... two public policy objectives, that may be contradictory
14:32:33 [josema]
... keeping as less as you can vs. keep as much as you can
14:32:47 [josema]
... you can use technology to help you any of those
14:33:33 [josema]
... our hope is as a W3C Group, to start with technology and go up to the policy area
14:33:53 [josema]
... eg. you can use this technology to fulfill this policy goal, this way
14:34:26 [josema]
chris: going through the draft, we should state this somewhere in the draft
14:34:35 [josema]
... as early as possible in the document
14:35:11 [josema]
rachel: yes, sometimes we want to do this or that but is not doable because of a given regulation
14:35:17 [josema]
chris: agree
14:36:01 [josema]
[john goes through areas in the draft]
14:37:15 [josema]
[also about perceived hierarchy]
14:38:36 [john]
josema: the structure is based on personal experience talking to people
14:40:49 [john]
josema: outreaching type documentation has been very useful in past from W3C point of view
14:41:50 [john]
josema: most people reading documentation won't necessarily have in depth understanding
14:43:06 [john]
josema: we also have lots of vocabulary issues - people using different language for same idea/concept
14:44:04 [john]
josema: documentation broader than developers, more project managers etc.
14:44:35 [john]
rachel: we need reference points - what things are and why
14:45:25 [john]
chris: this is why we should take business case point of view
14:45:56 [john]
josema: use use cases to highlight real projects using this or that technology
14:46:35 [josema]
regrets+ ari
14:47:00 [john]
chris: potentially restating business problem, then use case in that context
14:47:23 [john]
chris: focus on the problems
14:48:54 [john]
josema: is on hols from tomorrow - aim to have one or two sections finalised for group to see
14:49:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.626.aacc
14:50:13 [john]
rachel: put open gov and engagement to the top
14:51:17 [john]
chris: terminology important, use terms that will attract people
14:53:16 [josema]
zakim, aacc is kevin
14:53:16 [Zakim]
+kevin; got it
14:53:30 [josema]
[rachel leaves]
14:53:33 [Zakim]
14:53:56 [josema]
john: interesting thing for me is two hot topics prioritized
14:54:08 [josema]
... engagement and open government data
14:54:32 [josema]
... which does not mean there are lot of people working on the other issues
14:55:09 [josema]
... one selling point for OGD is our use of RDFa, that also helps solve some interoperability problems
14:57:50 [josema]
[jose explains back/front of Multi-Channel delivery]
14:58:04 [josema]
chris: better to use "access" than "delivery"
14:58:18 [josema]
john: I've learned something there, in the UK context we talk about delivery
14:58:45 [josema]
... we even have a Council named after that, working of the kind of issues jose mentioned
14:59:00 [josema]
... so, yes, we have a Delivery Council working on that
14:59:34 [josema]
chris: maybe we need both there
15:00:32 [john]
josema: we need textual description of all the topics
15:00:46 [john]
josema: do we prioritise?
15:00:53 [john]
the topics
15:01:57 [josema]
chris: participation, OGD, interop, Long term, Auth, Multi-Channel
15:02:05 [josema]
... if I had to prioritize
15:02:46 [josema]
john: I would agree with first three, probably then do: Multi-channel, Auth, Long term
15:03:08 [josema]
... but can we wrap Auth something else? eg. Multi Channel?
15:05:53 [josema]
chris: +1 to john's
15:07:30 [josema]
josema: +1 to start with those
15:07:45 [josema]
chris: and try to come up with more user friendly terminology
15:11:43 [josema]
kevin: have several things drafted on paper, will work on the computer
15:11:56 [josema]
... and deliver something in a week or so from today
15:12:19 [josema]
john: I will send something on the deadline or around it
15:13:13 [josema]
josema: it's difficult to write the doc without the use cases
15:13:27 [josema]
john: optimistic about setting up the deadline, hope more cases by then
15:14:52 [josema]
chris: do we have anyone working on long term?
15:15:02 [josema]
... I could write some on persistence
15:19:43 [josema]
trackbot, comment ACTION-34 chris to write a high level
15:19:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-34 Document "Handle" use for THOMAS as use case for 2.Persistent URIs notes added
15:22:36 [josema]
kevin: I'll meet with TimBL on January, if you have anything for me to say, please let me know in advance
15:23:35 [josema]
john: one: how do we encourage governments to do some stuff TimBL believes they should do?
15:23:52 [josema]
... e.g. duty to publish open data
15:24:06 [josema]
... part of where our Group is
15:30:31 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
15:30:31 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "open actions" taken up [from josema]
15:30:37 [josema]
[skipping this one]
15:30:44 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
15:30:44 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, josema
15:30:49 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
15:30:49 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, josema
15:30:54 [josema]
zakim, close this agendum
15:30:54 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
15:30:55 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:30:57 [Zakim]
4. next meeting [from josema]
15:31:07 [josema]
zakim, move to next agendum
15:31:07 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "next meeting" taken up [from josema]
15:44:53 [josema]
s/kevin: I'll meet with TimBL on January, if you have anything for me to say, please let me know in advance//
15:45:11 [josema]
s/john: one: how do we encourage governments to do some stuff TimBL believes they should do?//
15:45:35 [Zakim]
15:45:42 [Zakim]
15:45:45 [Zakim]
15:46:09 [josema]
s/... e.g. duty to publish open data//
15:46:13 [josema]
s/... part of where our Group is//
15:46:23 [josema]
zakim, list attendees
15:46:23 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.202.488.aaaa, Josema, chris, +1.509.464.aabb, rachel, john, +1.202.626.aacc, kevin
15:46:29 [josema]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:46:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate josema
15:47:32 [josema]
[next meeting: 7 Jan; 14:00Z]
15:47:36 [josema]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:47:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate josema
15:48:17 [josema]
zakim, drop me
15:48:17 [Zakim]
Josema is being disconnected
15:48:19 [Zakim]
T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has ended
15:48:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.202.488.aaaa, Josema, chris, +1.509.464.aabb, rachel, john, +1.202.626.aacc, kevin
15:48:28 [josema]
zakim, bye
15:48:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #egov
15:48:32 [josema]
rrsagent, bye
15:48:32 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items