[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: International Standard for Freedom of Information?
(I'm forwarding to the discussion list this thread...) ----- Hi Owen, These different concepts == vision, mission, goals. I would think these concepts fall as a manifestation the abstract type of "Intent" and "Belief" within the Primary Base Schema. And of course, the fundamental concepts of "evidence" itself, to actually assert intention or belief, is critical. I think that the State Dept. has established certain definitions for "axis of evil" and "rogue nations", but these precise definitions of these terms are not emphasized, and without explicit markup in a sense, has lead to back and forth accusations. I think the phrase that captures in a very direct and clear manner: "tighter linkages between opinions and facts, through high quality records." That in a nutshell captures the essence not only of freedom of information, but of conflict resolution. It is simply through the process of explicit awareness, and nothing else, that can bring positive results. Of course, I have read your references--there are many ulterior motives for deliberately to maintain lack of full transparency. In a discussion yesterday, Rob Nixon and Russ Ruggiero expressed interest in open information, from the perspective of guaranteeing transparency to the efforts around the world, including our own, and a means of sharing information. Russ is working on an article at this point which partly describes this potential need, especially in light of the recent war with Iraq. I'm CC:ing them on this email, as well as the huml discussion list. As for standards for freedom of Information, I am curious if this is something you see as evolving into a formal distinct effort, or as a visionary outgrowth of the XML work for recordkeeping being done right now? Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga ---------------------------------------------------- This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com -----Original Message----- From: Owen Ambur [mailto:owen.ambur@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 12:54 PM To: rkthunga@interposting.com Subject: Re: International Standard for Freedom of Information? Ranjeeth, some of the elements that are common to *all* strategic plans and reports (not just those required of U.S. federal agencies by GPRA) include: goal, objective, output, outcome, and metric (i.e., the units by which performance objectives, outputs, and outcomes can be measured). Others that are closely related but may or may not be part of the plans themselves and which cannot be *directly* measured in performance reports include: vision, mission, and values. The latter element is closely related to the potential of HumanML. Additional key concepts include "evidence" (i.e., records) and information *quality*. Without evidence, all that we really have are wishes, hopes, and dreams -- which may be fine for individuals and in-groups, but lead inevitably to misunderstanding, miscommunication, dissention, and perhaps conflict, including war ... unless they are tempered by reality (as evidenced in records having the attributes outlined in ISO 15489). Any nation that is unwilling to make public records containing evidence of their strategic goals, objectives, and results might rightfully be called a "rogue nation" and perhaps part of an "axis of evil". For an example of the GPRA plans and reports of a U.S. federal agency, see http://www.archives.gov/about_us/strategic_planning_and_reporting/strategic_ planning_and_reporting.html BTW, the old T-shirt I am wearing as I prepare to go out an work in our yard this afternoon displays the following quote by Thomas Jefferson: "the basis of our government is the opinion of the people ..." The need and potential to render "opinions" in clear, unambiguous form for reuse in .gov performance plans might be one way of thinking about the mission of HumanML. Beyond that, hopefully, the next logical step would be to draw tighter linkages between opinions and facts, as evidenced in high-quality records. Why people may prefer not to do so is the focus of my ongoing series of papers at http://users.erols.com/ambur/index.html#recordkeeping To the degree that organizations, particularly national governments, are unable or unwilling to do so, it should be possible to automatically calculate risk factors to determine the degree of threat they pose to others. One might think the latter topic might be of significant interest to DARPA, NSF, and other agencies whose mission is to foster research and development of information technology. I like to think of it in terms of an all-encompassing standard for freedom of information, ranging all the way from the most personal information each of us holds dear to ourselves, to the organizations we form to serve our common purposes within our myriad communities of interest/practice, and to nation states, worldwide. The common thread is reliable *records* containing the appropriate elements of evidence, circumscribed by the appropriate elements of metadata. Owen ----- Original Message ----- From: <rkthunga@interposting.com> To: "'Owen Ambur'" <owen.ambur@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: RE: International Standard for Freedom of Information? Hi Owen, I wanted to thank you for this perspective. I also agree that metadata is a way of ensuring accountability, by reducing the number of crevices ing which information can be hidden. News information sources may appear to be one step closer to neutral presentation of data and information, but not necessarily so. They too talk past each other in the same way--humans are inherently biased, and their presentation will be so. In a sense, the best way to abstract bias out of the picture is to establish more granular metadata standards, from my perspective. I think I described to you my somewhat discouraging conversation at the State Department where they do actually have something called "tags" (not really XML but some other convention) used within their inner circles to demarcate information designated for different types of audience consumption, but they have no intention of actually making this information available for the public--the public affairs is completely separate sphere. To actually break through such a barrier and to provide complete transparency with public policy and decision making, validated by specific metadata values, sounds really appealing. Of course, as you mention, it takes an environment where safety from retribution and strong moral integrity are present. What do you see as some examples of metadata you could envision within the spheres of diplomacy or international efforts that can validate the freedom of information within a government? I am thinking from a human perspective that factors of "belief" and "rationale" can certainly be drilled out further--from a purely government standpoint, you describe government agency reports and strategic plans and performance reports...what specific metadata containers would be part of such a potential standard? I have not had a chance to attend to the e-gov conference yesterday--I don't know if you had a chance to discuss this (or even attend), but I'd be interested in learning what your thoughts are on this TC as providing such a forum. Thanks again Owen. Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga -----Original Message----- From: Owen Ambur [mailto:owen.ambur@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:54 AM To: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga Cc: Rex Brooks (Rex Brooks) Subject: Re: International Standard for Freedom of Information? Ranjeeth, yes, in large measure an international standard for freedom of access to government information would come down to assessing the metadata ..gov agencies are associating with their Web-based records, worldwide, so that such records can easily be located, retrieved, used, and assessed (automatically). Other aspects include identifying: a) the types of records that are, or should be, common to all governments; and b) the essential elements of those documents, including the semantics (meaning) of those elements, which would amount to a "vocabulary" for "inherently governmental" functions; and specifying c) standard XML schemas for those elements and types of records. The pay-off for diplomacy, human rights, etc. would be to move beyond posturing, politics, and rhetoric -- hopefully, to transparency, understanding, accountability, and, when necessary, corrective action. The two headline phrases in the Al Jazeera ad were: "Telling the Truth is Hard. *Not* Telling the Truth is Even Harder." The background graphic was a picture of the hotel in Baghdad where one of their reporters was killed by fire from our forces who were returning fire from Iraqi fighters. I don't recall the exact wording of the smaller print but its intent was to convey Al Jazeera's commitment to reporting the truth as best it can be ascertained. The potential the ad raised in my mind was to challenge not only Al Jazeera but also CNN and other news providers to assist in identifying and publicizing the cultural factors that affect how each of us perceives and accepts what we believe to be "truths". Oftentimes it seems that not only the subjects of (people referenced in) news reports, but also the reporters and news reporting institutions themselves are "talking past" each other rather than "with" each other. Only by drilling down to primitive meanings can we overcome the natural (and necessary) tendencies to take "short cuts" in order to survive and act despite the limitations of human cognition. Those limitations are a key aspect I am endeavoring to address in my series of papers focusing on the need for effective management of records by organizations: http://users.erols.com/ambur/index.html#recordkeeping The primary focus of those papers is to identify reasons that those in positions of power (and we all have some degree of power within our own spheres of influence) may prefer *not* to have good records. Owen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga" <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org> To: <owen.ambur@verizon.net> Cc: "Rex Brooks (Rex Brooks)" <rexb@starbourne.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:52 AM Subject: RE: International Standard for Freedom of Information? Hi Owen, I spent some time reading the information below, and referencing our Charters of Freedom as well. I checked out your article below. To clarify that I am interpreting what you mean correctly, by defining the metadata involved in information, we can do two things: 1) Represent different government metadata that relate directly to freedom of information 2) Assess this level of freedom of the government based on the metadata that governments chose to present. I could certainly see HumanML as a standard involved in determining human characteristics that may be useful to the public at large, as well as to describing free information. I didn't realize when I first read it, but this could tie in nicely to the use cases we have been developing for the State Department. Rex has been working for some time on a Bill of Individual Human Rights, which I think dovetails quite directly into this particular area by addressing the other side of the picture--the responsibility of the governments to protect individual information. BTW, I am curious what advertisement you had seen by AlJazeera--I myself missed it. What was this ad about? Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga > Among the first generic elements and schemas that should be included are > those: > > a) for what NARA calls the "charters of freedom"; > > b) codes of law and regulation, including not only the authoritative, > legalistic versions but also plain language versions that can readily be > rendered in handbooks for use by specialized communities of interest; and > > c) .gov agency strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports, > e.g., required by GPRA. > -----Original Message----- From: Owen Ambur [mailto:owen.ambur@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:39 PM To: rkthunga@humanmarkup.org Subject: Fw: International Standard for Freedom of Information? Ranjeeth, Aljazeera had a great ad in The Washington Post today. It reminded me of the need for Human ML, as well as an international standard for freedom of access to government information. Perhaps this thread might be of interest. Owen ----- Original Message ----- From: <Owen_Ambur@fws.gov> To: "James Lewis" <JALewis@csis.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: International Standard for Freedom of Information? > > Jim, my direct voice line is 703-358-2138 > > I'll be tied up in meetings most of the day on Friday but should be in the > office most of the day on Thursdayh and until about 10:30 Friday morning. > > Owen > > > "James Lewis" > <JALewis@csis.org To: <Owen_Ambur@fws.gov> > > cc: <bfanning@aiim.org>, <DCarlisl@arma.org>, > <kevin@blueoxide.com>, <asap@bostromdc.com>, > 04/30/03 09:17 AM <skalathil@ceip.org>, <daniel@citizencontact.com>, > <dmcclure@EXCELGOV.org>, <gpolicinski@fac.org>, > <danalouise@hisoftware.com>, <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org>, > <MElledge@idealliance.org>, <Chet.Ensign@lexisnexis.com>, > <Michael.white@nara.gov>, <bassg@ombwatch.org>, > <Dan.Cragg@osd.pentagon>, <jcaldwel@pd.state.gov>, > <CAROLINE.DAVIS.ROBERTS@saic.com>, <h.wiener@state.gov>, > <Soyster@state.gov>, <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>, > <aardit@voa.gov> > Subject: Re: International Standard for Freedom of > Information? > > > Thanks. What's the best number to reach you on tomorrow or Friday. Jim > > >>> <Owen_Ambur@fws.gov> 04/29/03 09:14AM >>> > Jim, reading in this morning's Post about the meeting to set the stage for > a new government in Iraq prompted me to think it might be a wonderful > opportunity to begin to establish an international standard for freedom of > information against which the performance of all nations could be assessed, > automatically, on the Internet. > > Needless to say, there are lots of good reasons the skeptics can use to > avoid the specification of such a standard, not the least of which include > the digital divide, cultural issues, and limited financial resources. > However, none of those are valid excuses for failure to establish an > inspirational vision toward which all nations might be expected to aspire. > > If you (or anyone else) foresee any prospects for productive pursuit along > these lines, I would love to see the elements and schemas of such a > standard among those registered and made available in the XML repository. > http://xml.gov/registries.asp > > Among the first generic elements and schemas that should be included are > those: > > a) for what NARA calls the "charters of freedom"; > > b) codes of law and regulation, including not only the authoritative, > legalistic versions but also plain language versions that can readily be > rendered in handbooks for use by specialized communities of interest; and > > c) .gov agency strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports, > e.g., required by GPRA. > > Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Working Group http://xml.gov/ > FIRM FOB http://pages.zdnet.com/firmweb/federal_records/id1.html > > References: > http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/charters_of_freedom ...html > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/ > http://xml.gov/documents/completed/eGovXML.htm#207e > http://xml.gov/documents/completed/eGovXML.htm#207f > http://www.plainlanguage.gov/contrib/page1.htm > > ----- Forwarded by Owen Ambur/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 04/29/03 08:28 AM ----- > > Owen Ambur > > To: skalathil@ceip.org > > 02/27/03 05:04 PM cc: > > Subject: International > Standard for Freedom of > Information? > > > Shanthi, my message, below, to Tayor Baos bounced and now that I have seen > http://www.ceip.org/files/about/Staff.asp?r=45 I know why. I would have > addressed it to you as well but could not easily locate your E-mail address > until I discovered it at http://www.ceip.org/files/about/Staff.asp?r=36 > > If you have any comments or suggestions, I'd be pleased to hear from you. > > Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Working Group http://xml.gov/ > Vice Chair, FIRM http://pages.zdnet.com/firmweb/federal_records/id1.html > > ----- Forwarded by Owen Ambur/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 02/27/03 04:54 PM ----- > > Owen Ambur > > To: tboas@ceip.org > > 02/27/03 04:51 PM cc: > > Subject: International > Standard for Freedom of > Information? > > > Taylor, I read about your study, entitled "Open Networks, Closed Regimes: > The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule," in the January 28 > edition of The Washington Post (p. A19). On February 4 (p. A23) the Post > reported that $1.3 billion has been included in the FY04 budget for the > Department of State to fund the proposed Millennium Challenge Accounts, > which would "tie add to countries to their meeting judicial and economic > criteria." Those accounts are projected to grow to $5 billion in 2006. > > I obtained your E-mail address at http://www.ceip.org/people/boas.htm > > The purpose of this message is to inquire whether you think it might make > sense and be possible to leverage the Millennium Challenge Accounts to > foster the development and implementation of an international standard for > freedom of access to public information. I have been pushing that concept > for several years, thus far without discernible progress. See, for > example, > http://www.computer.org/proceedings/meta/1999/papers/85/oambur.html While > I don't hold out much hope that OASIS' new e-Gov TC will be ready, willing, > and able to exert much leadership toward that end, I will continue to look > for opportunities wherever they might exist. The next meeting of the e-Gov > TC is scheduled for March 12, in Washington. > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/egov/ > > BTW, I see that you speak esperanto, which indicates that we have at least > that much in common: > http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ldoherty/roster/taylorb.htm & > http://users.erols.com/ambur/xml.htm > > Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Working Group http://xml.gov/ > Vice Chair, FIRM http://pages.zdnet.com/firmweb/federal_records/id1.html > Personal Web Site http://users.erols.com/ambur/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]