This site was developed to support the Government 2.0 Taskforce, which operated from June to December 2009. The Government responded to the Government 2.0 Taskforce's report on 3 May 2010. As such, comments are now closed but you are encouraged to continue the conversation at agimo.govspace.gov.au.

Comments by

xtfer

TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 217

What about certifying or at least providing recommendations for the different platforms, FOSS software and other technologies that agencies can use? Perhaps through AGIMO.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:16 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 183

What about using co-creation models, ideagora’s or peer creation? Let the community loose on an “open source” policy, using a collaborative process.

This doesn’t mean putting forward X ideas and asking them to be prioritised. This means asking the community to put forward the ideas, decide their importance, and form this into a workable policy. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:13 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 142

A government policy on use of Creative Commons and GPL-like licenses would be useful, as the current defaults of Commonwealth IP are not suitable.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:08 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 135

One of the problem with large interlinked data sets is that they are almost NEVER complete.

But, the impetus for data to be timely conflicts with the desire for extensiveness.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:07 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 113

Don’t forget JSON and RDF!

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:01 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 102

The standards exist already… the Australian Government tries to reinvent standards more often than it should… mostly unsuccessfully.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  2:00 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 90

AGLS has been largely a failure. I’m not aware of ANY search service that uses is, and research by the CSIRO-developed Funnelback search (as used BY the Australian Government) showed that it reduced search accuracy when used.

Also AGLS, while expressable as RDF (which is good), is designed to be interpreted by Humans. Its not actually particularly useful.

For example, some of the spec mixes datatypes or uses for fields. A machine can’t make a decision in this case, only a person can, making AGLS problematic when used with RDF.

go to thread »
Posted August 21, 2009  1:58 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, whole page

The history of online innovation tells us that the big leaps weren’t created by big corporations or governments. Innovation comes from individuals and collections of individuals. Mass collaboration is the thing which makes it possible.

While all these projects seem worth enough, nothing here will enable innovation. This is just routine public sector tire-kicking. Plus, its not innovative tire-kicking: the UK, US and NZ have already bought the car and are driving it out of the showroom.

If we want government to embrace gov 2.0, then we actually need to show those who make decisions what the benefits are.

Where is data.gov.au?

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  5:54 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 4, replying to xtfer

This was meant to be against (5), but this commenting tool isn’t working properly in my browser (Safari 4).

This assumes that the NAA HAS relevant advice on Web 2.0 record keeping strategies.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  5:41 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 4

This assumes that the NAA HAS relevant advice on Web 2.0 record keeping strategies.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  5:39 pm