Statistics
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 17 Comments New Zealand Government Feed Standard 2009 (Second Consultation) A related post from Keith Booth plus discussion is at Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On August 5, 2009 @ 4:51 pm We have published an initial feed with government datasets. See Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On August 3, 2009 @ 5:53 pm Example structured feeds: – With atom category and custom elements for Closing Date, Consultation Category & Region. – Standard atom implementation is enough to convey title, location, licence keywords. – Example built from NZDF feed, with custom atom elements for Location, Job Category, Job Type, Employer. – Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On May 1, 2009 @ 4:27 pm Here’s one concept showing what any 3rd party might do with structured information from government. http://nz.elabs.govt.nz/ Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On May 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pm WCAG 2 Candidate Recommendation Implementation The focus has been on achieving Level AA. Because of user-contributed content, some aspects of AAA may be difficult to achieve (for example abbreviations in user-contributed content - or are such abbreviations ‘common usage’ for our audience?). Now that the main conformance work has been done I might take another look at AAA issues. Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On October 18, 2008 @ 7:52 am Vote for an accessibility enhancement to Wordpress. Hi Desiree Thank you for your comment. We have also been working to make this site an implementation example for the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. The post describing this is at I’d be interested to have your feedback on the accessibility of the nominated pages. Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On October 21, 2008 @ 12:10 pm New Zealand Government Feed Standard (Consultation) I will post an update on this in early December. Our thinking has developed on the huge benefits of some enriching of the feed formats and how to achieve that. However all key points and the Atom standard above will be the foundation. Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On November 25, 2008 @ 8:21 am Nathan, thank you for your insightful comments. 1) I totally agree. Publishing only web pages is not good enough any more. It really doesn’t count as open government information - we must be implementing the better solutions which exist now. This is an important message that needs to be spread. How? The NZ Web Standards probably have some role to play. There probably needs to be plenty of ‘carrot’ too… my vision is to demonstrate the power of personal aggregation and thereby encourage agencies to publish to feeds. Imagine a simple my.govt.nz which could take some profile details and deliver relevant information by filtering on category and source-agency… I’m also working with the the portal newzealand.govt.nz to enhance the exposure and status of the main government feed (aggregated from all govt sources). I’d like to think that fuller, better tagged feeds and the agile services that can be built from them can deliver rapid transformation in opening up government information. 2) In the proposal, the category list is not intended to be a fixed value list, but rather a set of values with a prescribed meaning that can be used in conjunctation with other ‘tags’. This is only partly with the portal and its specific functions in mind. It’s really just a first cut at suggesting how to tag information into usable segments. In the long term, no doubt a true folksonomy will develop. >As a consumer of these types of feeds I personally wouldnt want to have all sorts of information jumbled up into a single feed. At root government level, I disagree. I think the first challenge is to get _all_ of the data exposed. If this was to be through multiple feeds, then likely a feed-of-feeds would be necessary to ensure that all individual feeds were discoverable. As the primary goal, let’s get agencies publishing a core feed! With a core feed in place and suitably tagged, users or 3rd party tools can easily filter their own view. Secondarily, agencies may well then also choose to deliver ‘pre-packaged’ filtered feeds - subsets of the main feed. Something close to this is already happening at the Beehive, see Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On August 13, 2008 @ 5:24 pm Other categories for consideration: This needs some thought on aligning the meaning of such categories across organisations and providing various alert levels. Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On July 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm Further category/tag definitions could be: Looking for feedback on this from people in the local government sector. Comment Posted By Matthew Ross On July 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Comments Posted By Matthew Ross
http://blog.e.govt.nz/index.php/2009/08/03/exposing-non-personal-data-in-new-ways/
http://eg.elabs.govt.nz/datasets/datasets.xml
Consultation:
http://eg.elabs.govt.nz/feeds-2009/consultation-feed.xml
Dataset:
http://eg.elabs.govt.nz/feeds-2009/dataset-feed.xml
Job:
http://eg.elabs.govt.nz/feeds-2009/NZDF-vacancy-feed.xml
If agencies would publish information feeds with this minimal level of enriched structure this would seed 3rd-party innovation for end-user solutions.
http://research.elabs.govt.nz/wcag-2-candidate-recommendation-implementation/
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feeds
nzadvisory as in http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/ACs.htm
nzvulnerability as in http://ccip.govt.nz/
nzpublicnotice
nzresourceconsent
