<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NPSC Blog &#187; structured data</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/tag/structured-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog</link>
	<description>The public affairs practice in New Zealand Government</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:27:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Gartner on Web2.0 &amp; Government</title>
		<link>http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2007/04/16/gartner-on-web20-govt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2007/04/16/gartner-on-web20-govt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jason Ryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gartner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microformats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[o'reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public sector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[semantic web]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://psnetwork.org.nz/blog2/?p=54</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the beginning of March Gartner published a brief paper, titled &#8216;What Does Web 2.0 Mean to Government (no link: subscription required), that included some significant observations about our future operating environment, and it set me thinking about what this will mean for the public sector in big-picture terms.
Before we get to the report itself, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="thumb" src="http://psnetwork.org.nz/blog/wp-content/themes/npsc2/images2/govt2.gif" title="govt.nz 2.0 [BETA]" alt="Govt 2.0 logo" />At the beginning of March Gartner published a brief paper, titled &#8216;What Does Web 2.0 Mean to Government (no link: subscription required), that included some significant observations about our future operating environment, and it set me thinking about what this will mean for the public sector in big-picture terms.</p>
<p>Before we get to the report itself, by way of an introduction: if you are not entirely sure what this whole Web 2.0 thing is, then you should probably have a look at this seminal article by Tim O&#8217;Reilly, <a class="external" href="http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html" title="Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software">What Is Web 2.0</a>.</p>
<p>Back to the Gartner report. The opening sentence summarizes the nature of the analysts&#8217; thinking and conclusions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Web 2.0 will affect several industries, but none will feel such a pervasive impact as government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would argue that the first half of the sentence is already looking anachronistic (Web 2.0 is not just <em>affecting</em> industries now, it is <a class="external" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mainstream_media_web20.php" title="Read/Write Web article on Web 2.0 and mainstream media">driving them</a>) and, given this, the second half doesn&#8217;t necessarily augur all that well for governments.</p>
<p>Why not? Because most governments are still trying to come to terms with Web 1.0, let alone adapt to the rapidly changing expectations of citizens who are experiencing seismic shifts in personalisation, data control and accessibility in their dealings with Web 2.0 businesses.</p>
<p>And this &#8216;expectation gap&#8217; will manifest <em>inside</em> agencies as much as it will in their dealings with citizens. I have <a href="http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2007/02/16/blogging-as-a-public-servant/" title="Post on blogging as a public servant">already posted</a> about the importance of agencies evolving into the sorts of workplaces that match younger generations cultural expectations, but I can&#8217;t stress how important this is.</p>
<p>Governments, like every other employer, are desperate to attract and retain quality staff and ensuring that employees work in an environment that is socially and technologically similar to their existing experience of the world is critical. You wouldn&#8217;t expect a young public servant to work without a phone, why would you expect them to work in an environment where they can&#8217;t <acronym title="Instant Message">IM</acronym>, blog or collaborate with colleagues on a wiki?</p>
<p>This strikes me as one of the shortcomings of the Gartner paper: there is no consideration of how Web 2.0 technologies will influence the <em>internal</em> processes and cultures of agencies. I would expect that internally driven change was just as significant a contributor to transformed government as changing citizen expectations.</p>
<p>Gartner go on to predict (I believe, accurately) that <a class="external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(web_application_hybrid)" title="Wikipedia: mashups">mashups</a> will provide government with opportunities to operate more efficiently and effectively:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(Examples of mashups) requires governments to rethink the way they make their data and services accessible to external consumers, be they constituents or intermediaries.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>This</em> is the real crux of the implementation of Web 2.0 for government: who owns the data? And how do we manage it? I started to cover this when I wrote about <a href="http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2006/12/13/microformats-and-smr/" title="Post on microformats and the social media release">microformats</a>, and their potential for government. By making the data available for syndication and reuse, we are essentially saying to people &#8220;this is authoritative, go out and use it in ways that will make it valuable for you.&#8221; This could mean mashing up <a class="external" href="http://microformats.org/wiki/geo" title="Microformats wiki: geo">geo</a> data with contact details (<a class="external" href="http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard" title="Microfomats wiki: hCard">hCards</a>) and agency address (<a class="external" href="http://microformats.org/wiki/adr" title="Microformats wiki: adr">adr</a>) to provide a map of agency contacts that would be updated in realtime as the respective agencies updated their websites.</p>
<p>As Tim O&#8217;Reilly observed in <a class="external" href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/timoreilly_0413?currentPage=2" title="Wired: Tim O'Reilly: Web 2.0 Is About Controlling Data">Wired this week</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A lot of people still think, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s about social networking. It&#8217;s about blogging. It&#8217;s about wikis.&#8221; I think it&#8217;s about the data that&#8217;s created by those mechanisms, and the businesses that that data will make possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the more of that data that is structured, the more that is <a class="external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web" title="Wikipedia: semantic web">semantic</a>, the greater the payload of value that government will be able to deliver; both in terms of increased efficiencies and effectiveness, and in terms of opportunities for businesses and communities.</p>
<p>Of course, this requires a fundamental change in the way agencies view the data that they collect and maintain. It amounts to, in many ways, the <em>open sourcing</em> of government. Is that a step that we are ready (or able) to take? Will we have a choice?</p>
<p>The Gartner paper acknowledges this as a risk, stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As far as re-intermediation &mdash; which is where greatest potential benefit of Web 2.0 may lie &mdash; regulatory, privacy and data issues and politics must be considered. Much data that could produce benefits is not sharable. Different jurisdictions are struggling with how to produce the requisite policy/legal changes.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What does this mean for communicators?</h2>
<p>The vanguard of Web 2.0 in government is social media. And as communicators we are at the front and center of managing this change process. Understanding social media, and successfully implementing it in your agency, is an important step towards Web 2.0, and it is one that will largely rest upon your shoulders.</p>
<p>We may be only taking the first, tentative steps towards Govt 2.0, but our publics will increasingly expect more personalisation, more responsive and agile government. Our fellow public servants will increasingly expect a work environment that reflects their interests, their networks and ways of communicating with their colleagues and peers. And all of this represents a tremendous opportunity for us to reinvent the way that government serves the people. Who wouldn&#8217;t want to be a part of that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2007/04/16/gartner-on-web20-govt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
