IRC log of egov on 2009-05-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:58:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #egov
12:58:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:58:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:58:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be EGOV
12:58:24 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM already started
12:58:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference
12:58:25 [trackbot]
Date: 27 May 2009
12:58:34 [josema]
chair: john, kevin
12:58:41 [josema]
scribe: daniel
12:58:42 [hughb]
josema: 11pm
12:58:47 [Daniel_Bennett]
i have 8:58
12:58:50 [josema]
scribeNick: Daniel_Bennett
12:59:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.319.aacc - is perhaps Daniel_Bennett
12:59:28 [Owen]
Owen has joined #egov
12:59:30 [Daniel_Bennett]
12:59:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.410.992.aadd
12:59:47 [josema]
zakim, Daniel_Bennett? is Daniel_Bennett
12:59:47 [Zakim]
sorry, josema, I do not recognize a party named 'Daniel_Bennett?'
12:59:53 [josema]
zakim, who's here?
12:59:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aharvey, hughb, Sharron, Daniel_Bennett, +1.410.992.aadd
12:59:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Owen, RRSAgent, Sharron, Zakim, Daniel_Bennett, MoZ, aharvey, hughb, josema, trackbot
13:00:28 [Zakim]
13:00:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.564.aaee - is perhaps Brand?
13:01:36 [josema]
zakim, who's here?
13:01:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aharvey, hughb, Sharron, Daniel_Bennett, +1.410.992.aadd, Josema, Brand?
13:01:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Owen, RRSAgent, Sharron, Zakim, Daniel_Bennett, MoZ, aharvey, hughb, josema, trackbot
13:01:48 [Zakim]
13:02:05 [Daniel_Bennett]
sounds like people forgot to get coffee
13:02:06 [joec]
joec has joined #egov
13:02:33 [Zakim]
13:02:33 [Zakim]
13:03:08 [josema]
zakim, [IPcaller] is owen
13:03:08 [Zakim]
+owen; got it
13:03:08 [kevin]
kevin has joined #egov
13:03:14 [aharvey]
13:03:18 [josema]
13:03:27 [Rachel]
Rachel has joined #egov
13:03:30 [Daniel_Bennett]
Please say who is speaking when you start speaking. thanks
13:03:40 [Daniel_Bennett]
boo hoo
13:04:02 [Daniel_Bennett]
no problem
13:04:50 [Daniel_Bennett]
13:05:02 [aharvey]
aharvey has joined #egov
13:06:18 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin- will talk about White House call on Thurs in agenda 2
13:06:25 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose- ok
13:06:42 [josema]
zakim, who's here?
13:06:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aharvey, hughb, Sharron, Daniel_Bennett, +1.410.992.aadd, Josema, Brand?, Kevin, owen, Rachel
13:06:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see aharvey, Rachel, kevin, joec, Owen, RRSAgent, Sharron, Zakim, Daniel_Bennett, MoZ, hughb, josema, trackbot
13:06:46 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin start meeting
13:07:20 [josema]
zakim, take up next agendum
13:07:20 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Agenda adjustments" taken up [from josema]
13:07:23 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin - news of
13:07:32 [josema]
zakim, take up next agendum
13:07:32 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, josema
13:07:36 [josema]
zakim, close this agendum
13:07:37 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
13:07:38 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
13:07:39 [Zakim]
2. and more what's going on [from josema]
13:07:40 [josema]
zakim, take up next agendum
13:07:40 [Zakim]
agendum 2. " and more what's going on" taken up [from josema]
13:07:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin - mentions
13:08:16 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin- Beth N. has new title [congrats]
13:08:32 [josema]
13:08:54 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin - takeaways - 1. furthering transparency
13:08:58 [josema]
13:09:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: concept behind launch of site is to hear best recommendations
13:10:05 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: remarks on call pointed to short timeframe
13:11:01 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: 2nd round will show best recommendations into a second level that goes out to agencies for comments
13:11:48 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: already effort ongoing beyond the NAPA process too
13:12:10 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: can the recommendations be put forward as regs is a question
13:12:31 [josema]
13:12:42 [Daniel_Bennett]
"it may be till end of the year till much happens"
13:13:23 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: a lot of conversation. but many questions about why.
13:13:53 [Zakim]
13:13:56 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: Suzanne had clued folks into a memo that asked for top 5 data sources (to answer questions)
13:14:38 [Daniel_Bennett]
"were some people struggling for reason for datasets released.
13:14:39 [Daniel_Bennett]
13:15:12 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: my own comments were positive for having larger discussion with public
13:15:57 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: looking to put together list of orgs to contact
13:16:40 [Zakim]
13:16:42 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: What is our goal toward the process (our meaning w3c egov IG)
13:16:44 [josema]
zakim, Daniel_Bennett is joec
13:16:44 [Zakim]
+joec; got it
13:16:52 [josema]
zakim, aadd is Daniel_Bennett
13:16:52 [Zakim]
+Daniel_Bennett; got it
13:17:06 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel_Bennett is daniel bennett
13:17:16 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joec is Joe Carmel
13:17:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: we discussed this issue
13:17:37 [john]
john has joined #egov
13:17:50 [josema]
yup, thanks daniel, it was just that zakim confused both, it's fine now :)
13:18:04 [annew]
annew has joined #egov
13:18:08 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: how can we participate?
13:18:19 [josema]
13:18:39 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: should we post group note to Open Govt. Dialogue NAPA site?
13:19:16 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: we had brought the group note to some in us gov upon publication
13:20:42 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: in that gov put up not ready for prime time version a good place to start
13:21:18 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: media was looking for criticism. I was positive to the effort.
13:21:29 [Zakim]
13:21:44 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: so many questions going around. this is a method for moving forward.
13:22:03 [annew]
13:22:09 [josema]
zakim, [LC] is annew
13:22:09 [Zakim]
+annew; got it
13:22:12 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: should we post group note to Open Govt. Dialogue NAPA site?
13:22:24 [josema]
hi, anne! so great to see you around :)
13:22:36 [annew]
glad to be here
13:22:41 [joec]
hi anne
13:22:54 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: I put up my xml version of the site for people to play with
13:22:55 [josema]
13:23:09 [annew]
hi joe.
13:23:52 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: what was the acronym?
13:24:26 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: registration of information. makes a catalog that is human readable
13:24:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne: is it a periodical
13:24:38 [josema]
13:24:44 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne: ?
13:24:45 [josema]
wondeful URI, isn't it? ;)
13:24:56 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne: is it like GILS?
13:24:59 [Owen]
Sorry, Kevin. I was multi-tasking, taking another call when you called upon me just now.
13:25:03 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: yes, Anne
13:25:35 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: catalog descriptions is good to a point. linking is missed.
13:26:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: let me give an example
13:27:12 [Daniel_Bennett]
"if geo info is mentioned, then I could find it"
13:27:31 [Daniel_Bennett]
"but another model is to have URI for each location"
13:27:40 [josema]
13:27:49 [josema]
13:27:57 [Daniel_Bennett]
"but then I can go to a search location using URI for a set location"
13:28:01 [josema]
13:28:41 [Daniel_Bennett]
"and this is a linked system for URIs rather than just general catalog metadata system"
13:28:51 [josema]
13:29:07 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: you still need datasets to be published
13:29:17 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: agreed
13:30:19 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: if you RDF it then the information then it can be discovered
13:30:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.219.aaff
13:30:49 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: yes, but not saying that that is the only solution
13:31:59 [Daniel_Bennett]
Brand: did a google search that energy with
13:32:23 [Daniel_Bennett]
Brand: I get a URL, but not real answer
13:32:44 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne: are we asking to find the dataset or a piece of data?
13:34:55 [john]
13:35:43 [josema]
ack jo
13:35:45 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: talked alot
13:36:07 [aharvey]
13:36:34 [josema]
uh, oh, datapedia is coming
13:38:02 [annew] apparently...
13:38:07 [john]
are you saying we don't need dbpedia?
13:38:35 [john]
I think dbpedia adds value, no?
13:38:47 [josema]
I think Daniel is saying that as far as one can guess the underlying structure of the data it's fine
13:39:19 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: mainly about need to use WWW of domains to say where a dataset is and having a decent structure to the data, that can be enough
13:39:27 [Daniel_Bennett]
yes, Jose
13:39:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: fundamental problem of semantics
13:40:00 [annew]
I thought daniel was saying that we should be able to scrape the data from any web page. standards or no.
13:40:45 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: if one org is trying to standardize temp, that may be impossible across all orgs
13:40:50 [josema]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:40:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate josema
13:41:26 [josema]
zakim, who's here?
13:41:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aharvey, hughb, Sharron, joec, Daniel_Bennett, Josema, Brand?, Kevin, owen, Rachel, Ken, john, annew, +1.202.219.aaff
13:41:27 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne, as long as the web site /data is using standard web/xhtml or xml w/ xsl
13:41:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see annew, john, aharvey, Rachel, kevin, joec, Owen, RRSAgent, Sharron, Zakim, Daniel_Bennett, MoZ, hughb, josema, trackbot
13:41:55 [john]
agree, we are missing the URI concept with data catalogues
13:41:58 [josema]
zakim, list attendees
13:41:58 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.216.443.aaaa, aharvey, +0073411aabb, Sharron, hughb, +1.202.319.aacc, +1.410.992.aadd, Josema, +1.202.564.aaee, Kevin, Rachel, owen,
13:42:02 [Zakim]
... Ken, john, joec, Daniel_Bennett, annew, +1.202.219.aaff
13:42:12 [josema]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:42:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate josema
13:42:37 [Daniel_Bennett]
Ken: perhaps there is a way for important buildings in federal blds for example, that can be a standard
13:43:04 [john]
we use URIs to disambiguate
13:43:06 [Daniel_Bennett]
Ken: we need a good blend of web and semantic standards
13:43:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: wikipedia is an example of a centralized data
13:45:05 [josema]
daniel, anne, I think "valid" is not enough (in fact it's not even needed in many cases), I think the interesting point is to be able to guess what the data is about, what's the structure, as daniel mentioned e.g. microformats for geop, even better if some sort of XML or RDF
13:46:37 [john]
does an agency have a location? or does only a building? (something purely topographical)
13:46:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
Owen: we should move to XML instead of RDF
13:47:03 [josema]
zakim, aaff is rick
13:47:03 [Zakim]
+rick; got it
13:47:04 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: more long talking
13:47:31 [Daniel_Bennett]
Rick: not a good model for world, Owen
13:48:30 [john]
horses for courses, no?
13:48:38 [josema]
I said this a million times, for me it's about chosing the right tool for the job, and I can ellaborate
13:48:55 [josema]
s/ellaborate/ellaborate on that
13:49:03 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: W3C has combined XML with RDF into XHTML+RDFa
13:49:21 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: let a million flowers bloom
13:49:26 [annew]
Thank you daniel for some diplomatic skills
13:50:01 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: we should talk about best practices, not complete answers
13:50:30 [josema]
q+ to talk about not going the RDF vs. XML way
13:50:33 [Owen]
Correction: I did not say not to use XML *instead* of RDF.
13:50:42 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: we can use different things. but we should talk about it.
13:51:11 [Daniel_Bennett]
Anne: we have different ways to do things and we should have levels of completeness.
13:51:21 [Owen]
If we want folks to use RDF OR XML, we should help them do so.
13:51:29 [john]
whatever format you use (including Excel), we should be pushing for good uris
13:51:44 [josema]
+1 to owen!
13:52:00 [Daniel_Bennett]
john, we should use URLs if possible
13:52:01 [annew]
Quick and dirty with a minimal amount of reusability. i.e. Joe's example of using .csv instead of .xls
13:52:27 [aharvey]
+1 to Anne's point
13:52:30 [josema]
+1 to anne, too
13:52:33 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: lets use some use quick and dirty methods.
13:52:51 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose, please go ahead
13:53:33 [john]
13:53:37 [Daniel_Bennett]
Dave: first point to documentation
13:54:08 [Owen]
Documentation can be published in xsd:documentation elements within XML schemas.
13:54:12 [john]
+1 josema
13:54:23 [kevin]
+1 Josema
13:54:25 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: let us not go into xml vs. rdf.
13:54:53 [Owen]
Why not suggest best practices for both?
13:55:00 [john]
rdf is really bad for legislation documents for example...
13:55:04 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: some cases we have different sources, we need to just get better data.
13:55:46 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: GRDDL is an interesting way to expose data
13:55:47 [john]
also, there's lots to say for xhtml, no? as a great format ;)
13:56:28 [annew]
john: yes agree about rdf and leg docs. working on a leg schema. ...another discussion
13:57:00 [annew]
I have a meeting on the hour. Hope the conversation goes back to interoperability issue in John's email.
13:57:08 [josema]
sure, namely XHTML2!
13:57:11 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: concentrate on releasing
13:58:31 [josema]
one can apply GRDDL to XHTML(2) then get RDF (and XHTML(2) is XML in the end) isn't it wonderful?
13:59:10 [josema]
Daniel: BP1 = Documentation; BP2 = Standardization
13:59:24 [annew]
Anne's gotta go. Next time and online. Bye
13:59:30 [hughb]
best practice for semantically exposing data
13:59:32 [john]
cheers Anne
13:59:32 [annew]
13:59:36 [Zakim]
13:59:56 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: talks a bit about BP of documentation
14:00:14 [Daniel_Bennett]
bye Anne
14:01:13 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: that does point to some documentation
14:01:33 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: we should move to next agenda item
14:01:49 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: lets cover the Open Gov call
14:01:57 [josema]
s/call/call first
14:02:09 [john]
I agree
14:02:43 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: let me mention, I dont know how w3c will act.
14:02:46 [Owen]
One of the things the eGov IG could do is suggest additional datasets to include in
14:04:08 [Owen]
One dataset that might be good to include in is the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) dataset:
14:04:10 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: we will discuss whether is responded to. needs concensus
14:05:35 [josema]
s/act/act yet
14:05:47 [hughb]
14:05:47 [john]
hmm - is that the right place to do that?
14:06:08 [john]
shouldn't we talk more generically?
14:07:01 [john]
eg if you are a gov and want to surface data, is worth a look; it's great. If you wanted to do more, you could do x, y and z
14:07:11 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: we should have a w3c egov hosted discussion board
14:07:20 [josema]
I like more john's approach
14:07:24 [aharvey]
+1 to john
14:08:18 [john]
happy for the ig to talk about gov data, less happy talking about just; albeit a great and startling and important initiative
14:08:19 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: I agree that there is only a short amount of time. we should put together consensus doc
14:08:50 [josema]
s/doc/eGov IG doc
14:09:30 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: like John put up generic comments. also have a blog with individual commentors.
14:09:56 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: blog is good idea.
14:10:01 [john]
14:10:19 [Daniel_Bennett]
+1 enthusiastically
14:11:06 [josema]
+1, too
14:11:25 [hughb]
14:11:30 [Zakim]
14:11:50 [josema]
14:11:53 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: would this be in addition to examples?
14:12:16 [Daniel_Bennett]
what agenda are we on? still on 2?
14:12:35 [john]
yup, still on 2 I think
14:13:27 [Daniel_Bennett]
Joe: we are hoping to create a page off of the wiki key ideas as well as blog
14:13:33 [josema]
14:14:43 [kevin]
14:14:57 [Daniel_Bennett]
14:15:00 [john]
14:15:05 [josema]
14:15:21 [josema]
ack jo
14:15:45 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: I agree with Joe on doing experimentation as well as doing comments
14:16:04 [Owen]
I agree with Joe too.
14:16:15 [Daniel_Bennett]
John: we can bring a broader perspective
14:16:25 [Daniel_Bennett]
scribe notes only 14 minutes left
14:16:54 [josema]
14:16:57 [Daniel_Bennett]
and 2 agenda items left
14:17:44 [Daniel_Bennett]
can we vote? blog, no blog. experiments, no experiments.
14:17:45 [Zakim]
14:17:51 [josema]
14:18:26 [john]
blog is good, gives us some flex; lets move on ;)
14:20:30 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: lets move forward
14:21:11 [josema]
ACTION: kevin to collect comments
14:21:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-64 - Collect comments [on Kevin Novak - due 2009-06-03].
14:21:27 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin asks how to go forward
14:21:41 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: how to proceed?
14:22:00 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: will be talking to press, so would like some feedback
14:22:59 [josema]
site to comment = ?
14:23:00 [john]
too clever by half, I fear
14:24:19 [john]
issues paper covers heaps
14:24:42 [john]
so, maybe we just point to stuff thats there?
14:24:50 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: the group note can stand for our consensus
14:25:00 [Daniel_Bennett]
5 minutes left
14:25:06 [aharvey]
I'll be able to add comments on this stuff later today.
14:25:18 [Daniel_Bennett]
and still 2 agenda items
14:26:26 [josema]
re-reads: "...This online brainstorming session, open from May 21st to 28th, 2009..."
14:26:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: wonders about date for comments
14:26:51 [Daniel_Bennett]
Rachel: thought it would be longer
14:26:53 [josema]
apparently page not aligned to what was said on the call (June 2)
14:26:59 [Daniel_Bennett]
3 minutes left
14:27:07 [Daniel_Bennett]
still 2 agenda items
14:27:12 [josema]
14:28:00 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: not enough time to discuss charter, but lets discuss plan
14:28:01 [john]
great - go ahead
14:29:18 [aharvey]
I will be unable to make the June 10 call
14:29:43 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: we have deadlines
14:30:07 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: we have until mid-June for draft for charter
14:30:39 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: June 24 as a deadline to coincide with group call
14:30:53 [josema]
zakim, drop agendum 3
14:30:53 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Charter, dropped
14:31:00 [josema]
zakim, take up agendum 4
14:31:00 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Charter plan" taken up [from josema]
14:31:29 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: I agree. and read through comments. I think that the action item is for chairs to compile into one pager
14:31:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
14:31:39 [josema]
current charter:
14:32:00 [Daniel_Bennett]
Owen, I got an email confirm back instantly from opengov.
14:32:02 [john]
sounds good
14:32:10 [josema]
ACTION: kevin to draft a 1-2 initial pager re: charter, john and jose to help
14:32:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-65 - Draft a 1-2 initial pager re: charter, john and jose to help [on Kevin Novak - due 2009-06-03].
14:32:32 [josema]
14:32:40 [john]
think we're done
14:32:44 [Daniel_Bennett]
Daniel: times up
14:32:50 [Daniel_Bennett]
Jose: agrees
14:33:13 [josema]
topic: Gov 2.0 Summit
14:33:17 [aharvey]
I'm trying to get an invite to that summit
14:33:40 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: we have an opportunity for Gov 2.0 summit. we can put together case study.
14:33:56 [josema]
[opportunitiy to have some IG people in there]
14:34:27 [Daniel_Bennett]
"Daniel and Joe, you can put together Rosetta Stone [and Repository Schema] for 20 min presentation.
14:34:40 [Daniel_Bennett]
"Daniel and Joe, you can put together Rosetta Stone [and Repository Schema] for 20 min presentation."
14:35:12 [josema]
14:35:21 [josema]
[kevin offers invites :)]
14:35:31 [Daniel_Bennett]
Kevin: i'm done
14:35:34 [Daniel_Bennett]
14:35:36 [Daniel_Bennett]
14:35:40 [josema]
14:35:43 [Zakim]
14:35:47 [Zakim]
14:35:49 [Zakim]
14:35:49 [john]
thanks everyone :)
14:35:51 [Zakim]
14:35:52 [Zakim]
14:35:54 [Zakim]
14:35:56 [Zakim]
14:35:58 [Zakim]
14:36:00 [aharvey]
This was very informative. Thanks!
14:36:06 [joec]
good session
14:36:12 [joec]
joec has left #egov
14:36:57 [josema]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:36:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate josema
14:38:00 [Sharron]
Sharron has left #egov
14:38:39 [Zakim]
14:50:35 [Zakim]
14:50:55 [josema]
zakim, bye
14:50:55 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.216.443.aaaa, aharvey, +0073411aabb, Sharron, hughb, +1.202.319.aacc, +1.410.992.aadd, Josema, +1.202.564.aaee, Kevin, Rachel,
14:50:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #egov
14:50:58 [Zakim]
... owen, Ken, john, joec, Daniel_Bennett, annew, +1.202.219.aaff, rick
14:50:59 [josema]
rrsagent, bye
14:50:59 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
14:50:59 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: kevin to collect comments [1]
14:50:59 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:50:59 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: kevin to draft a 1-2 initial pager re: charter, john and jose to help [2]
14:50:59 [RRSAgent]
recorded in