The Government has now responded to the Government 2.0 Taskforce's report. As such, comments are now closed but you are encouraged to continue the conversation at agimo.govspace.gov.au

Comments by

Mike Nelson

ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 777

The metadata data model is quite an old definition of RDF. It is more correctly a general method for machine-readable conceptual description or modeling of information and knowledge representation.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:53 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 780

This doesn’t quite match the W3C definition. Fundamentally, the Semantic Web is a web of data. It provides “a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries”. A key missing word is intelligent software agents.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:49 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 788

After paragraph 788, insert definition for Web 3.0 as a synonym for Semantic web.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:41 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 791

Open Office XML -> Office Open XML

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:39 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 130, replying to Geoff Mason

@Geoff Mason, you cannot ignore paragraph 652. You cannot simply gloss over the fact that when you put something on Facebook you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts located in Santa Clara County, California and agree to personal information being transmitted to the United States.

If I’m making a submission to a public inquiry in Australia, I want my personal information protected by the Privacy Act with the full force of Australian courts behind it.

@ Mike Nelson - It is reliant on the models and strategies used to communicate – each of these channels are just another tactic and in a professional sense, and in a governance sense, there is no justification for AU Government not to distribute key messages on overseas servers. For example, NSW police use twitter to distribute information to their target audiences and conduct the actual dialogue using traditional methods. Outright thinking of US Vs THEM will greatly the limit the opportunities of this media and reduces the capacity to work collaboratively. Strategic use of any communication channel to better support the AU public should not be overlooked.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:36 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), whole page, replying to Tom Worthington

There is also a lot of repetition.

The report is an unfortunate combination of hard to read bureaucratic writing and hard to read web formatting. The task force needs to work out on exactly what it is trying to say and then say it, briefly and clearly. The ANU has asked me to prepare a course on "Electronic Data Management" (COMP7420 ) for servants in 2010 addressing many of these issues.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:16 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 653

“important for agencies to use open file formats” – use of ODF should be mandatory for general office applications.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  3:13 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 392

“cultural change in the APS” – not all government employees are APS.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  2:43 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 306

Minor typo: Europen -> European.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  2:39 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 363

Computers have only become entrenched in day to day government activities for the last 20 or so years and in some specialised scientific areas for maybe 40 years. This means there is another 60-80 years worth of PSI that exists only on paper, like the historic newspapers. There should be a recommendation for proactive scanning and digitisation by OCR of historic PSI still on paper and open this to public error correction. For example Hansard or Royal Commissions prior to the 1980s.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  1:08 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 660

The Taskforce should recommend that PSI be created in open formats where possible, i.e. use ODF as standard for general word processing instead of DOC. The national governments of Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, France, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia and South Africa, and many more regional/state governments and municipalities around the world, have mandated the use of ODF (ISO 26300) and PDF/A (ISO 19005) for reading, publishing and information exchange.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  12:29 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 315

open standards, open source software and open formats

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  12:19 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 167

Second point should be “based on open standards and open file formats”.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  12:18 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 138

Second point should be “based on open standards and open file formats”.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  12:16 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 162

Not all government employees are public servants. This also doesn’t take into account that a fair amount of “implementation” has been outsourced to private contractors.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  10:52 am
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 3, replying to Stephen Collins

Good point. There are also government employees who are not public servants.

The work the public service does serves not only citizen, but also many others. The term "citizen" is used too often and it sometimes unintentionally excludes those who are not citizens, yet are recipients or users of the services the public sector provides.

go to thread »
Posted December 9, 2009  10:41 am
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 652

This is why it is extremely dangerous to be using commercial third party sites like Facebook and Twitter to get feedback on public policy. They may have the name and critical mass but they are outside Australian law and making a copy of something on those sites if you need it as a “record” could actually be a breach of copyright!

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:39 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 130

Interactive media is all well and good, but it must not be on commercial sites outside Australia. The Facebooks and Twitters of the world are not subject to Australian law.

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:31 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 124

The COAG treatment makes sense as a fair amount of PSI resides in state government agencies. Ideally all should work to the same set of technical standards. We don’t want a repeat of the railway gauge problem.

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:28 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 118, replying to simonfj

International collaboration it essential, including greater involvement in W3C and ISO processes. Otherwise we will just end up reinventing the wheel or come up with something incompatible with the rest of the world.

No mention of international collaboration with this english speaking group (although it's inferred). Important to mention Aussie's non inclusion in the UK, US & Can Digital Engagement TF conferences. No mention that PSers of tommorrow are being educated on social networking tools and have a global perspective whereas older PSers are sceptical. i.e. edu practices leads gov. practices

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:23 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 143

data.gov.au is an excellent idea. The recommendation should note that any PSI made available through such a portal must have metadata in RDF. AGLS is the obvious standard to use.

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:16 pm
ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 704

WCAG 2.0 is a complete dog’s breakfast. Intellectually interesting but impossible to implement in the real world. Compliance is not complex, it is outright impossible!

go to thread »
Posted December 8, 2009  4:13 pm