- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:22:41 +0100
- To: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Forgot to add. Many, many thanks to John for help scribing! J. El 17/12/2008, a las 20:28, Jose M. Alonso escribió: > > Hi all, > > Daft minutes are at: > http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-minutes > > and as text at the end of the message. Please, send comments before > my (CET) EOB tomorrow. I'm sending a separate message with a summary > on the discussion about the Group Note. > > -- Jose > > ---------- > > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference > > 17 Dec 2008 > > See also: [2]IRC log > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-egov-irc > > Attendees > > Present > josema, chris, rachel (part), john, kevin (part) > > Regrets > owen, martin, kjetil, rinke, ari, jeff > > Chair > john > > Scribe > josema, john > > Contents > > * [3]Topics > 1. [4]agenda adjustments > 2. [5]outline of document > 3. [6]open actions > 4. [7]next meeting > _________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > [8]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note > > [8] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note > > 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 [9]how to describe topics based] > > [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2008Dec/0043 > > 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 [10]ACTION-15) > > [10] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/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 [11]ACTION-34 chris to write a high level > > [11] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/34 > > <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] > > [ADJOURNED] > > [End of minutes] > _________________________________________________________ > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version 1.133 > ([13]CVS log) > $Date: 2008/12/17 16:16:55 $ > > [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:23:23 UTC