eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

17 Dec 2008

See also: IRC log


josema, chris, rachel (part), john, kevin (part)
owen, martin, kjetil, rinke, ari, jeff
josema, john


agenda adjustments

john: any?

josema: reminding people of dates and location of 2nd F2F
... proposed 12-13 March at AIA in DC, USA
... please, send feedback

chris: good for me

rachel: good for me, hope I could find funding to go there

john: please, let us know if we can help to justify the importance of the trip

outline of document


josema: we have outline, not spectacular yet, outline taken from relevant messages from mailing list, use cases and wiki
... difficult to categorise the issues, we have many different dimensions of view
... some conversation are out of scope for W3C as policy related. Aim to show how to use W3C standards in a good way
... every use case is relevant in several areas, then we repeat the dimensions problem
... example with transparency from john the other day - not a technical topic, so changed to open government data

chris: whatabout social media - how to nail that from policy versus standards?
... we could surface, what are standards that underpin web 2.0 sites
... want to see building of the business case for those at policy level

john: another relevant point is how government can make good use of this 2.0 stuff to do better decision making
... Sweden taking over EU Presidency, it's my understanding they have much interest on this
... endorses the point you are making, problem is not about technology

chris: how does W3C look at social media issues?

john: e.g. what if you are putting video on youtube?, then you have issue with content accessibility
... what about data portability?
... these issues have been discussed for years in W3C
... hence the workshop in Barcelona (Spain)
... depending on views of members, could be a basis for charter

rachel: I'm having hard time separating policy from standards
... in the US, new government will make greater use of these tools
... maybe we should also consider the idea of what is doable and what is not?
... 2.0 is all about enabling, how to help government structure their data so that allow people
... to access that data to find the answers to their questions
... help people to help themselves

john: agree, difficult to separate, very related
... but in terms of the Note, what do we want as headings?
... policy-like vs. more technology-like
... I can give example
... say US gov has to decide what information to keep long-term, what to destroy
... two public policy objectives that may be contradictory
... keeping as less as you can vs. keep as much as you can
... you can use technology to help you with any of those
... our hope is as a W3C Group, to start with technology and go up to the policy area
... eg. you can use this technology to fulfill this policy goal, this way

chris: going through the draft, we should state this somewhere in the draft
... as early as possible in the document

rachel: yes, sometimes we want to do this or that but it's not doable because of a given regulation

chris: agree

[john goes through areas in the draft]

[also about perceived hierarchy]

[josema on how to describe topics based]

josema: the structure is based on personal experience talking to people
... outreaching type documentation has been very useful in past from W3C point of view
... most people reading documentation won't necessarily have in depth understanding
... we also have lots of vocabulary issues - people using different language for same idea/concept
... documentation broader than developers, more project managers etc.

rachel:we need reference points - what things are and why

chris: this is why we should take business case point of view

josema: use use cases to highlight real projects using this or that technology

chris: potentially restating business problem, then use case in that context
... focus on the problems

josema: on holidays from tomorrow - aim to have one or two sections finalised for group to see over them

rachel: put open gov and engagement to the top

chris: terminology is important, use terms that will attract people

[rachel leaves]

john: interesting thing for me is two hot topics prioritized
... engagement and open government data
... which does not mean there are not lot of people working on the other issues
... one selling point for OGD is our use of RDFa, that also helps solve some interoperability problems

[jose explains back/front of Multi-Channel delivery]

chris: better to use "access" than "delivery"

john: I've learned something there, in the UK context we talk about delivery
... we even have a Council named after that, working of the kind of issues jose mentioned
... the Delivery Council

chris: maybe we need both there

josema: we need textual description of all the topics
... do we prioritise the topics

chris: Participation, Open Government Data, Interop, Long term, Auth, Multi-Channel
... if I had to prioritize

john: I would agree with first three, probably then do: Multi-channel, Auth, Long term
... but can we wrap Auth something else? eg. Multi Channel?

josema: I think it's big enough to stay and Martin is working on it (see ACTION-15)

chris: +1 to john's order

josema: +1 to start with those

chris: and try to come up with more user friendly terminology

kevin: have several things drafted on paper, will work on the computer
... and deliver something in a week or so from today

john: I will send something on the deadline or around it

josema: it's difficult to write the doc without the use cases

john: optimistic about setting up the deadline, hope more cases by then

chris: do we have anyone working on long term?
... I could write some on persistence

trackbot, comment ACTION-34 chris to write a high level

<trackbot> ACTION-34 Document "Handle" use for THOMAS as use case for 2.Persistent URIs notes added

open actions

[skipping this one]

next meeting

[next meeting: 7 Jan; 14:00Z]


[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/12/19 11:16:50 $