Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0: Draft report for comment
Here is the draft Government 2.0 Taskforce report Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. The Taskforce is seeking your comments and input before finalising the report to go to Government.
Please understand that this is a draft and there will be some proofing issues which we are still working on. Your comments are welcome on those, but we are working on them as you read this – of most value are your comments on the substance of the draft report.
We are providing it to you in a range of formats below. The prime document which we’ve been working from is the Word document. We have also converted it into HTML (both here on the blog and on CommentPress) and PDF. You may notice formatting differences between the different versions. You can leave a comment on the HTML version below; on our Consultation page using CommentPress; or you can send us an email.
Your comments will help inform and improve the final report. We cannot promise to consider comments received after 5PM Wednesday 16th December 2009.
RSS Feeds
Email Subscriptions
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Very impressive piece of work with a great read across to the UK. Thank you.
Great work! Thanks very much for this and we will be going through the report and contributing any feedback as soon as we can. Thanks for putting the draft up for final comment!
I just had a quick skim, but it looks very interesting. Obviously written by people with “Clue”. Excellent!
Just a quibble about the consultation page, could it be made to be full width instead of fixed width? Or maybe drop off the third column? I find it pretty cramped as it is and I keep getting lost (maybe a link to jump back to the TOC could be added to the top of the non-moving second column?)
Yep, add me to the list, first look and I am pleased. It is an impressive step on the road and I am confident that the TF has the legs to ’sell’ into government.
What a great report. Very impressive and mostly forward thinking. I was thrilled to read such a well researched report which identifies culture as a major factor. However, there are three areas in which the report can be strengthened.
1. The most celebrated Australian Government online Web 2.0 national service is undoubtedly Education Network Australia (EdNA) which began in 1995 and was the first web-based data driven web service in Australia. This service is the envy of the world in government, education and training, if you follow the literature and research blogs. However, EdNA is not hailed in the report as an exemplary, innovative, pre-eminent Australian national service, acknowledged internationally, nor is its pioneering innovation that pre-dated every other Australian Government department even mentioned. This is a gross oversight because EdNA has been at the forefront of government online collaboration now for nearly fifiteen years.
2. The report does not define collaboration yet it relies on the idea of collaboration as a ‘good’ thing to do in order to enhance democracy which is laudable. In its simplest form collaboration can be inferred from the report to mean ‘working together’. However, that is no different from cooperation, consultation, coordination or networking. For the report to be credible, a robust definition of collaboration is needed. The definition should include the capacities to ‘work together’ and to ‘create knowledge’ as essential components of collaboration. The literature is quite clear on this point.
3. A minor but common error is to name Sir Tim Berners-Lee as the inventor of the World Wide Web. However, he was the co-inventor at CERN in 1989 with Robert Cailliau. I suggest you check the literature on this point in Gillies and Caillau, How the web was born and Berners-Lee The World Wide Web and the Web of Life or even Wikipedia even though it is slightly factually incorrect. Cailliau and Berners-Lee each put forward a proposal at the same time but decided to use the one from Berners-Lee. They both then set about to achieve their proposal after agreeing a name for it as the World Wide Web as they eat lunch in the CERN cafeteria courtyard .
Congratulations and keep up the good work.
Best wishes
Gerry White
Gerry,
((Please retract your erroneous paragraph 3. See Tim’s FAQ. Or ask Robert. Thanks!))
Cita Motua
Gerry,
I agree with your first point. I’m in a minority in not liking definitions much. Once you define something, it has a fixed meaning. Of course it’s not a case of anything goes – obviously one uses words as accurately as one can – but we’ve had a little bit of a debate about the difference between the expression ‘co-creation’ which some of the literature suggests is somehow more than collaboration. Personally I think words should have clear meanings but not so that they cannot take on shades of meaning from specific contexts.
Still, we are going to try to define ‘open government’ a little more specifically in the final and in my opinion these things are matters of judgement and of style with the proof of the pudding being in the eating. So if you (or anyone else) wants to propose a redraft of any section proposing a definition or doing anything else, please be my guest. Just download the .doc file, activate revision marks and send it in. If we like it, we’ll go with it.
Yes, Cita is right. TBL is the inventor. There is a complete paper trail to confirm this.
I agree that Edna is one of the most brilliant sites around but I am not so sure of its 2.0 cred. For my mind, there is some disconnects between content and collaboration in the architecture of the site. I think it could improve on a range of fronts. Not to diminish its core value but I would slighlty argue against the notion that it is a gross oversight. In my little niche interest, it could do with more video content, perhaps even UG video content. It would certainly not have passed muster as a benchmark in our video consultancy for the TF.
The collaboration points are very valid but I can also see where Nicholas is coming from. I look forward to seeing if there is some more work on defining collaboration in the final report. I think you make really good and valid points. It is possible that we can all take stuff for granted that other audiences might need more guidence on what a term actually means in an agency.
Great work and certainly heading in the right direction. There is considerable mention of transparency with the public and what tools could help to make this a reality – wiki’s, forums, Instant Messaging etc. My experience over the past few years with web 2.0 collaboration and communication platforms strongly suggests that internal use is a must so that employees & management understand the benefits before rolling out a public face for their organisation. Without this knowledge any public presence will not be effective and may not achieve the goals you are aiming for. In some cases the value of web 2.0 tools may be much greater when used internally, such as with Instant Messaging, than they are as an external access medium.
The report is fine and the sentiments are indeed welcome. However, the problem becomes: “what is government supposed to do with all this information and how can they analyse it all effectively and effciently to make sense of it?
The answer would be to use a methodology and a tool called SenseMaker that analyses this type of feedback and looks for emerging patterns from which government can make informed interventions and decisions. I understand that SenseMaker is used by governments in Singapore, the UK and the US as a sophisticated tool of analysis. Without a tool for good analysis, feedback and public opinion will only tell part of the story.
@Brad – There is plenty of local expertise to help in this area. NICTA is actually developing some technology to assist with this – for example, Sen. Kate Lundy used it for her Public Sphere events. The company I work for, Headshift, is also working with companies in Australia to help them listen and understand what people are saying about them in social media and on social networks, and there is no reason why the same approaches can’t be extended to government.
Looks like a great start. Very pleased to see this all coming together, and the drive towards embracing open standards. I’ve been a huge fan of the National Archives’ Xena software and what they’ve been doing to preserve digital information in general, good to see them used as an example.
I look forward to seeing the actions proposed here, and the cultural change required within government. The role of the Online Community Manager is going to become a very important one indeed to ensure these Government 2.0 proposals thrive in ‘the real world’ – I speak from experience, keeping the community talking and producing great work is quite the mountain to climb but well worth it!
Pleased to see you feel, “of most value are your comments on the substance of the draft report.” But, a little worried.
159 pages, 50,000 plus words, many detailed recommendations and only 9 days to respond.
An interesting exercise in community consultation. Of course, not a problem if we all confine our responses to 140 word tweets.
Hi Roger, I think that this is a slightly different than usual review in that pretty much all the content has been contributed and commented upon online through this blog. So it isn’t a case of having to parse from scratch an enormous document and respond accordingly, for many they have been engaged in the conversation for some time and this is just a read through to ensure it adequately and accurately reflects the ideas that have already been discussed through online and in person consultations. 10 days is a bit tight, but it is a tight deadline for everyone
Cheers,
Pia
DISC: I work for Senator Kate Lundy who is not directly involved with this project, but we both are supporters
Rowdy applause from the U.S. White House Open Government Initiative. The draft report is an impressive piece of work, assembling a vast trove of good ideas and sound analysis. We will study and learn.
By way of update, earlier today we published the Obama Administration’s Open Government Directive. At first glance, there appears to be a great deal of congruence with the draft report.
We wish you a vigorous public consultation, and look forward to the final report.
–andrew
Andrew McLaughlin, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer
I join the rest to say it is a great start.
Some comments on the recommendations:
- 3 & 4: Interesting to discuss if there would be a way to ensure the conversations public servants engage in are robust are not just the type that many agencies are used to: “Thanks for your comments we will take them into account”
- 6: Great recommendation
- 12: I think it will be key to help the raise of more organisations working in the area
I was also involved in one of the projects from the OECD where public servants and civil society practitioners were consulted around the areas of citizen engagement for public policy making. This is the video with those views that could provide some more food for thought.
For most citizens the most interesting and useful information that the government holds is about the citizen themselves. The task force report does not consider access to personal information except in the context of making sure that demographic data is not able to identify personal information about individuals.
Because access to personal information by the person themselves is critical to building trust and cooperation with the government it would be desirable for the report to reaffirm a citizen’s right to access their own information. How to implement personal access to personal information could be a task for the Information Commissioner
Kevin,
While I’m sympathetic to your own concerns here, do you feel that the current arrangements are inadequate in some way?
I’m anxious not to stray into controversial territory which obscures the burden of the TF’s message, which is that ‘non-sensitive’ data should be freely available, open, machine readable etc.
Where one draws the line between what’s released and what’s not is not a major focus for us – it’s getting all that stuff for which there are not plausible privacy, confidentiality and security arguments to protect secrecy – out there and fully open in all the senses enumerated in our draft report.
The draft is an impressive piece of work that gathers a dizzying array of ideas and makes coherent and cogent sense of them. It’s no less than I expected, having had discussions with several Taskforce members. Well done!
I’ve put together my thoughts on some of the potential risks the work the Taskforce has done now faces as it moves to business as usual. You can read them on my blog.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Stephen. I appreciate that many people haven’t raced onto the blog and commented immediately, but have taken their time to read the report.
A public servant’s reading against the grain of my last comment above and his quick email to me makes me think that, for the avoidance of doubt, I should add, that I’m not casting aspersions on the fast readers amongst you!
It’s an impressive report, and I think the most challenging task arising will be around PSI. The obvious datsets (weather information, ABS data etc) will provide no (real) problem, but the lead agency will have its work cut out satisfying the requests from the non-government sector for information to be released.
To take a simple example, a list of e-mail addresses of government webmasters would be a useful marketing tool – but should that be released and kept up to date, and at what cost? There would be thousands of similar cases throughout all levels of government.
can you send me that email list of webmasters when done
It would be published openly – I think in the 2.0 era private deals will be discouraged B-)
AGIMO’s WebManagers’ Mailing List may be a close approximation of what Kerry is asking for. Like many specialist mailing lists, membership is somewhat restricted (in this case, a *.gov.au email address is all that is required).
Government web managers could sign up to such a list expecting, quite reasonably, to be spared from vendors’ sales pitches. The names and email addresses on the list are provided on the understanding that they are notprovided to third parties.
The restricted membership may also encourage an increase in the robustness of discussion (particularly of vendors’ products), and ensure that discussions remain focussed on the goals of the mailing list. It is a ’safe place’ for government web managers to discuss common issues and ask questions amongst themselves. Members are responsible for keeping the details ‘up-to-date’, in tandem with automated ‘dead recipient’ removal.
If this list was made public without first acquiring approval from all of its members, Finance (AGIMO) would likely be in breach of the Privacy Act.
directory.gov.au, however, has very different goals and purposes. Names, organisations, email addresses and phone numbers are exposed publicly (even made available as a bulk download), as the providing agencies understand and accept that that is why they contribute to the Directory.
Further reading:
- Privacy and Privacy Statements (AGIMO Web Publishing Guide)
- Information Privacy Principles (Office of the Privacy Commissioner)
Am I dreaming to think that the actions proposed could seriously be taken up with zeal within our Federal Government?
This report is a fantastic first step to a much more participatory style of democracy. It would be the biggest added value to the super fast broadband.
But what are the realistic prospects for success in the medium term?
By past performance, not good. It’s likely to be put at the end of a very long line of other pressing reforms in the queue waiting for attention by a PM who micro manages almost everything.
To date we have seen little evidence of ‘fresh thinking’ in the way that government or the opposition does business. What became of the best of the 2020 summit recommendations? What value was placed on community input into the best climate control response for Australia?
Tokenistic engagement produces poor policy advice and disjointed strategic planning. Will this status quo change? I hope so.
The draft report is conceptually solid and the recommendations practical and visionary. One of the more critical challenges is going to be, as Stephen has picked up on, is what happens once the Taskforce disappears? The risk averse and overly controlling culture of APS agencies remains and without a concerted effort will not change.
As I indicated in my submission on the reform of Australian Government Administration I believe the ‘culture problem’ is created and perpetuated by the practices and processes of corporate areas within Agencies. So my suggestion is that the practices and processes of corporate areas be reviewed in order to shift the culture. I suspect they actually need to be doing less.
Anecdotally, I am aware that one of the consequences of the work of the Taskforce itself is that it has made people more willing to engage in robust discussion and has had a liberating influence. That is a credit to the Taskforce. However, anecdotally, I am also aware that this has created some disquiet in corporate areas. Understandable of course, but the risk is that this disquiet and the disbanding of the Taskforce will result in inertia at a time when greater speed and agility is needed.
To address the risk of inertia I suggest that the Open Declaration should be made as soon as possible by the Prime Minister. It would be a great New Years gift and set the tone for 2010 and beyond. I’d love to see it!
My other suggestion for the report relates to the establishment of the Lead Agency. This Agency needs to be quite different from other APS Agencies in order to set an example for the rest of the APS. One of the ways to do this would be to set aside conventional APS recruitment processes and look at staffing the Lead Agency on a fixed term basis – e.g No tenure beyond 12 – 18 months. This would allow expertise and the champions of Gov 2.0 to move back into Agencies. I will give this more thought over the next week or so to provide more ideas on how this could work. One other thought – a mix of public and private sector expertise would be good.
Some smart ideas there, Steve. I especially like the concept of ensuring lead agency staff cycle in and out to make sure that skills maturity passes back to line agencies.
Pick me for that gig!
Thanks for the feedback Stephen. Maybe people should just start putting there hands up to join the Lead Agency should it be formed.
Count me in for sure.
Cheers.
count me in
While this has been a ferocious job of work, I am fascinated by all the concepts that do not seem to appear – let’s try the following:
digital divide; Indigenous; Immigrant; cultural diversity(other than in the mention of the Institute for Cultural Diversity) ; linguistic diversity; social inclusion (other than in reference to the government’s social inclusion portal, which has been a consistent failure); languages other than English; Arabic; Spanish; Asian; Equity (a short footnote only); gender (a footnote and a category); disability…
Am I seeing a pattern here? Could this be the game at the big end of town that simply ignores issues of equity or diversity? How is it possible when talking about “engaging” with government to have a report that disengages from the majority of the population? While the community input has been valiantly carried into the fray, this is a report that needs a lot of rethinking. It claims to be concerned with ” the opportunity to make representative democracy more responsive, and more participatory. ” But it makes no mention at all of the people for whom responsiveness and participation are major problems already. At least in the UK they recognise they have a culturally diverse population, with pockets of extreme disadvantage where social exclusion is compounded by technogical marginalisation. Unfortunately this exercise is so very Canberra and Tech Valley heavy that the realities of Australia’s cities and towns seems to have passed the conversation by. As as organisation deeply involved with participation, engagement and web 2.0 (Energetica is our partner and knows how hard this is) this report sends a major signal – more a warning claxon – to Australia’s Indigenous and Culturally Diverse and Disability and Social Justice communities — you’ll get whatever it is decided the main players want to have the system look like; your needs, orientations, specific issues and contributions will not be of interest.
I am astounded that I have had to write this, as I expected something so much better.
Andrew, I think your response here is a touch over-sensitive. The Taskforce and all their work has, at all times, been open, inclusive and encouraging of input from all sectors of Australian society.
Yes, of course there are significant parts of the populace whose ability (mostly these days through inadequate technical skill rather than actual unavailability) to access services and programs delivered by government is limited. I don’t believe, however, that not mentioning them explicitly in the report means they aren’t considered. Rather, an extensive framework for accessible and equitable delivery of government services to all parts of society already exists beyond the scope of the report. Whether access and equity is done well in every case is another discussion altogether.
I’m well aware of the issues faced by sectors of Australian society – I’m involved in volunteer work in the social sector and have extended family in rural and city Australia whose capabilities to access services are less than stellar – but largely due to education and technical capability.
I think you’ve been unfair in your response here. There are people on the Taskforce for whom access and equity are major, top-of-mind considerations.
Just back in the swing of the blog after delivering our report on video.gov.au idea.
Thanks Steve and Pia for handling some of the issues. I do feel like the TF has created a sort of funny family here. I know that I have certainly come to know key gov online players better and my estimation of their efforts has skyrocketed.
I have not had the chance to get right into the draft report, as said, have been busy with our little bit. But, I will assume that the issues of access and equity that Andrew raises are based on a reasonable assesment of the draft report. If not, I will be back to make further comment.
Steve points out that many on the TF are very well credentialled in A,E&D issues. Any ommission might be, as steve suggests, simply because there are a long-standing and ongoing efforts on the issues and so ‘out-of-scope’ in a report that is charting new territory.
I certainly know that the team that worked on video.gov.au started from A,E&D and we devoted a lot of time to exploring the way that video (powered by new and emerging captioning oppportunities) could play a part in pulling down the walls of discrimination.
In some ways, the issues raised are also partly addressed by Pia in responses to the timeframes for comments. My quick read of the report was much in Pia’s spirit, having travelled the path with the TF, I have a level of confidence that the report covers what the gov 2.0 community have talked about. the report is essentially the encapulation of a conversation between a good and deciated community with teh TF inputting, guiding, and listening.
So, I can only assume that Andrew and the ICD have been inputting energetically into the process, the very open process. I don’t have the time to go through the whole blog and look. If not, well that is OK but it does need to be accepted that you can say anything about the gov 2.0 process but you can’t say it was not completely open to anyone to input. I dare anyone to show a gov initiative that has been more so.
Anyway, this is the start of the line, not the end, and I think that we can expect the work to go on in the same inclusive, flexible manner. So, there is much time to keep the process honest in terms of access, equity, and diversity.
I am with Steve, I think that Andrew’s input is a bit over-sensitive and I think that there are much better ways to address any perceived failings.
I hope my response (and Steve’s) can be seen in the light of a forum doing a bit of self healing.
Better get back to my report to the TF on how I found dealing with them. Sneak preview, it was brilliant.
Well yes Stephen and Jimi, et al. I was dealing with the evidence in the report not the suggestion that the people involved in it aren’t nice people. I am not particularly sensitive about this issue, but I am confused when a report that claims to be about participation and engagement ignores the quite vast literature on issues of government responses to cultural diversity – the first report I did on this for the federal government was in 1987 (Equal Disappointment Opportunity) tracked through all the reasons given by the public sector as to why it was an issue of incapacity in the population, not a problem in the mind-set of the bureaucracy. I see a contemporary echo in some of the responses here. As for the social inclusion agenda, it has come under huge criticism for being in denial about cultural diversity in the main from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship; I’d be very wary in leaving the responsibility for equity issues to that part of the bureaucracy. As to the ICD involvement in this whole debate (http://tinyurl.com/CDNGov2-0), the ICD project with the Human Rights Commission gets a specific mention in the report as an exemplar of how government and communities can engage as more equal parties at arm’s length – yet it appears that the mention has no effect on the conceptualisation of the problems that Government 2.0 should address. We agree that the PS mindset or culture is a major question that requires sustained work — the Institute is arguing that the culture is not only technological and “political” but also affected by other hierarchies of power around ethnicity, race, disability and so on; the response by Government requires conscious integration, not marginalisation. I welcome the fact that we can at least open out this parameter for discussion.
Andrew
I very much agree with your comments, I was absolutely appalled that a report that was supposed to enhance social democratic processes and engagement at a National level, did not seek to address nor acknowledge that for many people there are very real systemic blocks to participating in this type of reform such as, lack of access to ICT due to cost or geographic isolation, poor literacy etc.
The report I believe is predicated on a technological determinism rather than understanding the distribution and engagement of people within the social democratic process of government is above all cultural. This cultural understating is shaped by issues or class, power, gender and so forth. Technology be it a book a phone or radio is merely a facilitator. There fore any policy change or cultural change must deal and engage with these barriers. I agree that the report alluded to this, but to make it happen requires tangible funding directions and a conception of what it is to be citizen. Secondly I would have liked to see a real discussion on how public service act would be changed so as to allow public servants to engage with public. I would have also liked to have seen a charter by which politicians and senior government officers would accept the free and frank discussions by public servants on issues of policy or data they regularly use.
There was also no real discussion on what and informed public debate should be and what outcome. What are the parameters what information and how should it be published. I personally do not believe twitter will make a difference. In fact, if anything it is a distraction and undermines the real nature of what considered policy development and engagement should be.
For several people reply to Andrew that he is over sensitive in his criticism is I believe is extremely and profoundly unfortunate. Andrew and his colleagues for many decades have had to fight and continue to fight to ensure engagement with those most marginalised in Australia. Secondly I believe does not recognise significant and large expense by Governments at a State and Commonwealth level to broaden the conception of access from a passive idea of “build it and they will come”, to a notion that access is an active process where Governments and services must reach out and actively engage with the citizen.
I was also deeply troubled that the section third sector and democracy were one section. This seemed to me to be a very odd grouping. Firstly I believe the whole report was about enhancing democracy and secondly many third sector organisations are deeply undemocratic. By this I mean they are exempt from anti discrimination laws such as equal rights for women or discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. This is not to say that many are not democratic. However, the aggregation of these two elements within the report, I believe demonstrates a narrow understanding of political and democratic processes.
As I mentioned before, I believe the report was driven by technological determinism not one of engagement within the context of social democratic state. This I believe is clearly demonstrated in the consultation process. To only go to several capital cities and one regional city and rely on online web site is not a National consultation. It effectively excludes those furthest away from seats of power ie those in remote and regional Australia and those with least capacity to engage with ICT because of poor band width and costs.
This project should have been an exemplar of how to engage in new ways with the citizen and demonstrate the possibilities. It was good to have mashup competition etc. However it relied on people who currently new what to do with data. This process I believe could have been enhanced by providing tools or sandbox to play with not just the raw data. It should have considered a much simpler web site well organised and clearly mapped out with plain english description on what it was and what it was hopping to achieve. It would have been good have some interactive public web broad cast so people from across country could have participated.
While I welcome the direction of the reports and its sentiment I fear that a report that does not directly address some of the issues I have raised will be used to block access to information to the well informed few and not the population as a whole.
Hi Andrew
I agree with you on the importance of addressing systemic factors to ensure that all people can participate in this space. However, I think it is quite unrealistic to expect that the report itself should address all of these issues. It is more than sufficient to emphasise social inclusion.
If the social inclusion agenda needs improving and beefing up then that is what should happen. I make this point because the technologies that are associated with Gov 2.0 are, by their very nature, democratising. That is why there is, within our quite traditional bureaucracies, cultural resistance and a degree of fear.
The concerns and issues you raise are those that should be addressed as a part of implementation. This is, I suspect, one critical ‘proof of the pudding’ factor. That being said, we do have to recognise the interdependencies – e.g. Access to IT is something that may have to be addressed via public libraries and, for some groups, may be have to be augmented by more traditional approaches. Having worked with some of the most disadvantaged people in the country in my previous career I have to say it is what gets done that counts.
Nicholas G – It might be worth considering whether the open declaration should contain some words in relation to social inclusion.
Cheers – Steve D
Steve
Thanks for your thoughts. I think your note to Nicolas is a good start.
I would go a bit further and have the idea of social inclusion as a principle and or part of a preamble. For example ” The right of all citizen to see, use and interrogate data, information and knowledge gathered and utilised by government is one of the corner stones of a social Democratic State. To this end, the Government shall develop and implement a range of strategies and practises that enable all citizens to use and access government data, information and knowledge equability”.
I would make one exception with your comments, ICT / technologies in of them selves are not necessarily democratising, its the use we put them to that makes them democratising. History is littered with governments filtering and censoring information flows to meet there own agendas.
Andrew
The issues of access and equity (inclusion) are important, but as Jimi said, the process was open to anyone.
I must admit I am a bit torn on this issue. On the one hand I think Andrew’s comment “Canberra and Tech Valley heavy” is worth taking note of – it is a risk worth given the tendency of the APS to be Canberra centric. Having spent around 15 years working in the Northern Territory Public Sector I can vouch for that tendency.
On the other hand I see nothing in the report itself and the quality of the discussion to indicate that inclusion has somehow got lost. So in that sense, I agree with Stephen that the criticism is unfair.
I do not think the UK can be held up as a glowing example given the constraints faced by the Champion for Digital Inclusion. If you haven’t already it is probably worth taking a look at programs funded via the EU Convergence Program. Check out Wales.
All in all I think it is reasonable to address this issue via the Social Inclusion agenda. The draft report does point to this and, while there will always be discussion about whether the emphasis is sufficient, I think the key question is whether the draft report lays a comprehensive and solid foundation for implementing Gov 2.0. I for one am of the view that it does.
Obviously it is important not to loose sight of the importance of inclusion, but that is something that should be assessed when planning and implementing. If you like, practical inclusion.
Cheers – Steve D
Hi All
I just want to add that one of the major strengths of the report are those associated with empowering public servants to have robust discussion on line. That is going to pose considerable cultural challenges and a shift in mindset of course.
In a practical sense, it is also going to require some changes in how accessing social networking sites is handled by Agencies. Ideally, changes like this would be handled in consultation with employees.
O n that score I want to share some live anecdotal evidence with you concerning what tends to happen at present.
A very thorough report. I am focused on Spatial data so my comments really apply to that aspect.
We are awash with spatial data (mostly Govt based) in this country but just can’t seem to grasp how to publish it to the broader community despite the availability of the technology for quite a while now.
The bottom line is that we need an infrastructure of remote, close to source and standards-based published geo-spatial resources (with or without good metadata) connected via the Internet. This will require real funding, real commitment and leadership.
Are our collective Governments capable of delivering this before the developing countries leapfrog us?
Cheers….
A great piece of work and a credit to all involved.
While there is much discussion of supporting public servants to try new techniques and technologies, my experience has shown that in the public service the offer to take a risk must be explicitly accompanied by a free pass if the project fails. This is a very hard concept to convince most managers of, leading to much empty rhetoric about ‘pushing the boundaries’.
The report is correct in noting that this is by no means a technical challenge, but in fact a deep cultural issue that reaches into the highest levels of government. Brad’s comment above in some ways points to the urgency that this change in culture must assume – developing countries beat us to the punch as their public institutions rapidly morph to embrace these technologies and techniques, while our entrenched attitudes keep our feet firmly in the mud of cultural inertia. As an example of this, look at the way many developing nations bypassed land-line communications and headed directly to cheaper, easier to deploy mobile technology.
Just taken my first look at the draft report. Nice work and a shame I didn’t look before the deadline as I feel you have mixed up a concept around Semantic Web in Box 11.
You note AGLS and other metadata standards as being relevant to the Semantic Web. Well yes, and no. AGLS is a page based metadata scheme (contained in ) which is used to describe the creation of the page and generalist information relating to it from a functional or topic centric view.
Semantic mark-up on the other hand is in-line tagging of items within the page of content mapped to a referenced scheme (Linked Data/data.gov/RDF/RDFa etc). AGLS does not provide this functionality.
The Australian Agriculture and Natural Resources On-line site is a good example of this. If you look at the metadata on a resource described on a page like this, it isn’t actually particularly useful if you are looking for the resource referenced on the page:
<-- this is the date of the page of course, but the report is actually dated 2002
Incidentally, the copyright status of the material is also a little confusing.
The metadata sample dropped off:
meta name=”DC.Publisher” content=”AANRO”
meta name=”DC.Coverage.jurisdiction” scheme=”AglsJuri” content=”AANRO Australian Agriculture and Natural Resources Online, by …, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia License”
meta name=”DC.Date” content=”2009-07-27″
meta name=”DC.Type” content=”text”
meta name=”DC.Format” content=”html”
Or you could attempt to both simultaneously, supporting multiple discovery, re-use and harvesting approaches. From data.australia.gov.au:
(head – meta)
…
meta name=”DCTERMS.Type” scheme=”AGLSTERMS.Document” content=”dataset”
…
(body – RDFa – view source to inspect)
Date Published
…property=”dc:date.published” datatype=”xs:date”…2008-12…
@ Gordon, always good to see your quality work rising to the surface of government online.
I liked the fact that the datasets on data.gov.au had RDFa references for discoverability but I don’t, as yet, see any real use of inline semantic tagging such as FOAF on directory.gov.au or strategic deliveries such as WofG Open Calais licensing….
…. then again the majority of government sites don’t comply with AGLS or xhtml/css/accessibility so maybe wishing for semantic tagging of content is a dream for another decade (says he noting one quickly appearing). Time for AGIMO to take an auditing role to get government webmasters moving in the right direction?