As I foreshadowed in my previous procurement post, the Internet Based Network Connection Services (IBNC) RFT has now been released on AusTender reference number FIN10/AGI019.

General characteristics of the IBNC Services which separate them from other telecommunications services include:

a) the IBNC Services utilise the IP Protocol Suite, including other protocols which may be encapsulated or tunnelled over IP;
b) the data carried over the telecommunications services traverses a packet-switched public data network;
c) the access point to the carrier network (Point-of-Presence) for the telecommunications services is within the borders of Australia, including Australian territories; and
d) the telecommunications service is not a dedicated point-to-point telecommunications service, such definition excluding telecommunications services which form any part of an end-to-end IBNC Service.

The overall strategic objectives of the coordinated procurement of the IBNC Services are to:

a) achieve savings in Commonwealth telecommunications expenditure;
b) improve price transparency of telecommunications services for the Commonwealth;
c) reduce the cost and duplication of procurement processes for both the Commonwealth and the telecommunications industry;
d) continue to support competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry; and
e) maintain flexibility to meet the individual needs of Agencies.

We are looking forward to receiving your IBNC responses by 30 September.

So, we’re here at last…and we’re blogging, or blegging as it may be, and we’d like to invite you to participate in the Community of Expertise. That means sharing your knowledge by writing a blog post, commenting on others, or nominating a topic for discussion.

What it’s all about

The NTS discussed the creation of a Community of Expertise (CoE) to encourage collaboration in developing advice, techniques and resources to implement WCAG 2.0. For government, this means we share the cost and resource burdens of conformance, we get consistency in the application of web standards, we can centralise some training and education, and we get the benefit of sharing our common issues.  For the private sector, it means they can be involved in discussions on policies and procedures, and through this, may gain a better understanding of the issues facing government agencies. For accessibility experts, disability service organisations and peak bodies, the CoE provides an opportunity to promote understanding of the varied needs of all people using government websites and services.

How it works

Over the next few weeks we’ll be publishing a range of information on WCAG 2.0, how to implement the standard and general accessibility advice. Some of the discussion will begin in the CoE, and once formalised and agreed, will move to the Web Guide (previously named Web Publishing Guide). This process will give web managers and accessibility experts opportunity to comment on the advice and guidance they will be asked to implement; and will help ensure everyone is interpreting accessibility guidance in a similar manner.

Within the Community of Expertise, government web managers and accessibility experts work toward creating content to be approved and published on the Web Guide. To facilitate this, AGIMO and invited experts will raise issues for debate and comment by CoE Members, which will form the basis of future accessibility guidance. Working Groups will also be established by AGIMO to solve complex whole of government technical issues and Mitigation Projects. CoE Members will create and or contribute to Tools, Techniques and Templates, before accessibility advice is amalgamated and published. Overseeing this work, the WCAG 2.0 Reference Group representatives will monitor progress to WCAG 2.0 and discuss collaborative policy frameworks.

How to get involved

This is where “begging” meets “blogging”: we want to hear from people (organisations can’t speak – people can) with an interest in accessibility matters. We all know a blog is only as good is its last post, and without involvement from CoE members, we won’t get very far. There are many ways to contribute:

• Comment on blog posts and provide your expertise to assist one another;
• Nominate a topic for the CoE to commence discussing (this might be something that you need help with);
• Nominate to write a ‘Guest Post’ on the blog if you have specific expertise that you want to share (an example might be on ‘closed captioning’).

Topics of discussion might include a particular accessibility issue you are experiencing or have recently overcome; questions or comments on web technologies (e.g. HTML, Flash, and JavaScript); WCAG 2.0 techniques or success criterion; or even principles of accessibility in general.

Guest posts can be from anyone, about anything (so long as it’s about accessibility). We’ll invite some members to post, but don’t be shy in raising your hand too. The only real condition of guest posts (or comments) is that we will not allow commercial endorsements. Feel free to promote your good work, but leave the business of selling goods or services to your website. Any posts should observe the  AGIMO blog guidelines.  For all the other advice about belonging to the CoE, see our Terms of Reference (RTF 100KB).

Down the track, we will look at more ways to foster discussion and debate through online collaboration tools. We are also planning in-person information sessions so stay tuned for those details.

In the meantime, send your nominations for blog topic or  to wcag2@finance.gov.au or comment on the blog.

Metadata framework

In the previous post, we explained how we choose metadata elements, some of which were mandatory, some of which we had to develop for our own purposes. Once we had chosen what we wanted, we had to break up the metadata into a framework. We put together a spreadsheet to help us map it all out. Listed below is an explanation for each column:

• Element / Term Name– the name of the metadata tag
• Definition – what it does
• Scheme – what listing the metadata tag comes from. This is where we differentiate between existing published schemes (such as AGLS) and our own schemes (WG-something). Do we want to control the list of acceptable entries for that metadata? Controlled vocabularies provide standardised terms, but reduce the flexibility
• Source – how will the tag been filled in? Either it will be common, something we can pull from the content management system (CMS) or an author will have to complete it manually (we tried to reduce the burden here so that there is a greater chance of useful compliance)
• Page type metadata used for – we have a number of page types on the site – the home page, a menu page and a content page. Not all of them need the same types of metadata, so this field makes that explicit
• Repeatable field – sometimes we’ll need more than once instance of a tag. For example when multiple agencies contribute to a piece of content, we’ll have multiple authors, indicated by this field
• Comment – comments on the tag
• Example – the syntax of the tag (in both RDFa and [X]HTML)

We ended up with a subset of what you would find at http://www.agls.gov.au/documents/aglsterms/#AGLSMetaTerms, plus a few additional elements.

Specialised metadata

One of the questions was why would we want to create metadata tags and schemas when there are so many already published? Why would we want to alter the standard? As David Bromage from the National Archives says, AGLS is extensible. Where a tag or schema doesn’t meet our needs, we can create our own.

The trick is not to start with any particular metadata in mind, but to start with the end in mind. We want to point our information towards a particular set of roles, so we needed to tag content pages with which role they were associated with. The example we discussed in the last post (AGLS audience vs. making up our own) is one where we took an existing element and created our own schema. For others we needed to create the element from scratch.

One of the major things people coming to the site want to know is whether a piece of guidance is mandatory or just a good idea. On the current site, we manually generate a list of mandatory items. But we wanted to change that by adding a tag. Because there is no existing element which is close to what we wanted (it’s a fairly unique element to government policy advice sites), we had to create WPGTERMS.compliance from scratch.

Using AGLS.mandate would not be appropriate for identifying whether or not a page was mandatory for agencies, but would be useful for containing references to mandates related to all guidance pages.

We identify that we created the element by calling it WPGTERMS (stands for Web Publishing Guide TERMS), and then made up a name for that element (compliance). We have to make up the scheme in a similar way that we did for the audience types and lastly we then need to make the controlled vocabulary we can use with that element. There’s a lot there, but it means we can finely control an element we exactly suits our needs. The final tag will look like:

<meta name=”WPGTERMS.Compliance” scheme=”WPG” content=” mandatory, better practice ” />

Close the loop

The last thing we are planning on doing with all of these specialisations we are creating is to release them back up to the internet – add to the extensible nature of the standard. That way, should another site need similar tags, we have already created them. They can copy ours.

We’d like to provide an RDF Schema declaration on webguide.gov.au or xml.gov.au, referenced by pages on our own site, possibly in the following fashion:

<link rel=”schema.WPGTERMS” href=”http://www.webguide.gov.au/wpgterms/terms/” />

Have you ever needed to extend AGLS or existing metadata standards? If so, why? How did you share the results of your extensions?

I hope the “plain English” explanations help everyone understand what we are looking for, and how they can best respond. Finance is seeking a diverse panel of TLMS providers, which could comprise organisations such as System Integrators and Telecommunications Providers, who may have broad offerings and capabilities in the Managed Services space, along with niche specialists who can offer advisory or other capabilities in specialist areas.

Many of you had questions about the interface between these services and Virtual Carriage Management Services (VCMS).VCMS covers the end-to-end management of Virtual Connections over underlying carriage services (eg VPN management) and is part of the Internet Based network connections RFT which is due to released in the near future.  I would expect many of the Telcos and System Integrators to bid for both Services.

Because this is now an open tender, I am not allowed to respond to any comments here (and this particular post won’t accept them) – the more formal process of publishing addenda on AusTender takes precedence. I would encourage you download the RFT from AusTender in order to be alerted to, and to access, all addenda.

Once again thanks for your comments.

Mundi Tomlinson

Draft COE Post

We’ve compared this response with other related posts. This is the same graph for the draft Data Centre RFT, showing roughly an order of magnitude more of interest:

Draft Data Centre RFT

It would appear that people don’t read the AGIMO blog on weekends – who would have thought that! It’s also interesting that new readers continue to view the post even after comments have closed.

Not all our posts are about procurement. We might post some more analysis later about some of the others, which received even more attention.

Another interesting aspect is from where the viewers are coming. These two pie charts show the spread:

Draft COE Post

Draft Data Centre RFT

I’m not sure if there are any conclusions to be drawn from this data yet but we’d be interested in your comments.

We also allowed people to make comments directly to us via email. We did this to assist industry. Historically, we get little public feedback from identifiable individual industry members for a range of commercial reasons. We thought that a more private opportunity might help in this regard. Some vendors did contact us about the draft, requesting discussion time so they could elaborate on their services. While we appreciate their interest and willingness, we couldn’t accept these proposals at this time. If we need to approach the market to implement aspects of the policy, we’ll do so in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.

So, where to now?  Based on the lack of content-based comment, we’re assuming the discussion paper doesn’t contain any issues precluding us from using it as the starting point for the new whole-of-government Common Operating Environment Policy. Our inter-departmental working group agrees. And, of course, we’ve gained an insight into what content attracts comment and discussion and what material might be better suited to other forums.

The COE post will be closed for comments now. You can, of course, comment on this post. We look forward to hearing from you next time.

Regards

John

John Sheridan

First Assistant Secretary Agency Services

During the caretaker period agencies can still continue with many of their pre-existing “business-as-usual” processes, including communicating online as part of these processes. However, an important part of the Caretaker Conventions is that Commonwealth resources, including online resources such as this blog and other social media tools operated by agencies, cannot be used to communicate material which advantages any party in an election campaign. These measures are not specifically intended to curb free speech or discourage political discussion among the community; rather they are to protect the apolitical nature of the APS.

AGIMO is part of the Department of Finance and Deregulation and as such we must now observe the Caretaker Conventions. Reflecting this, the AGIMO blog is now in caretaker mode and I think it’s important to articulate how we at AGIMO will manage this blog during this time. We will take extra care to ensure that any content posted to the site, either by us or the public, complies with the requirements of the Caretaker Conventions.

As the Guidance on Caretaker Conventions (PDF 111k) from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states, this means that during the caretaker period agencies need to carefully consider their use of online engagement tools:

6.2.9 The interactive functions of websites within the gov.au domain such as discussion groups, chat rooms or blogs which allow unmoderated comment or debate should be moderated during the caretaker period. Words along the following lines might be appropriate: “In the period preceding an election for the House of Representatives, the Australian Government assumes a caretaker role. It is important during that time that Australian Government resources are not used to communicate political material. As this website is hosted by the [Department of …], the site will be moderated from the time the House of Representatives is dissolved until after the election to ensure that political material is not placed on the site.”.

Expanding on this guidance and in consultation with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the AGIMO Web Guide team has also developed some guidelines for APS agencies which fall under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 about managing online engagement tools during the caretaker period.

In terms of this blog, we plan to continue using post-moderation on all comments. You can read our moderation policy to see what this means – essentially all comments appear automatically unless they are caught in our automated spam and profanity filter. If comments containing political material appear on the blog, we are obliged under the Caretaker Conventions to remove them. If this approach proves unworkable, we may need to switch to pre-moderation (where all comments are approved in advance before appearing on the blog).

During the caretaker period, we will also close comments on  several posts made on this blog by Ministers. We will continue to use, and or, refine the blog’s automated filters to help prevent any potentially political material appearing in comments.

Australian Public Servants using social media during the caretaker period should also review the Australian Public Service Commission guidelines on APS values and Code of Conduct in practice.

I would like to reiterate that these measures are not designed to prevent the public from becoming involved in the election process, but instead aim to preserve the apolitical nature of the APS. While you may not be able to discuss political matters on the AGIMO blog or other APS websites during the caretaker period, you do of course have the option of doing so on a range of other online forums.

Declaration of Open Government

The Australian Government now declares that, in order to promote greater participation in Australia’s democracy, it is committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology.

Citizen collaboration in policy and service delivery design will enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought. Collaboration with citizens is to be enabled and encouraged. Agencies are to reduce barriers to online engagement, undertake social networking, crowd sourcing and online collaboration projects and support online engagement by employees, in accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission Guidelines.

The possibilities for open government depend on the innovative use of new internet-based technologies. Agencies are to develop policies that support employee-initiated, innovative Government 2.0-based proposals.

The Australian Government’s support for openness and transparency in Government has three key principles:

• Informing: strengthening citizen’s rights of access to information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies including through online innovation, and making government information more accessible and usable;
• Engaging: collaborating with citizens on policy and service delivery to enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought; and
• Participating: making government more consultative and participative.

Supporting Initiatives

The Australian Government’s commitment to action on each of these principles is demonstrated by:

• the passage of legislation reforming the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and establishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner;
• the Government’s announcement on 3 May 2010 of its response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce report, Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0;  and
• Its response to the Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration report, in which the Government agreed that creating more open government is a key reform for the Australian Public Service.

Effective collaboration between citizens and government requires timely sharing of the information held by Government. The Government’s FOI Reforms create the new statutory Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and establish a comprehensive Information Publication Scheme that requires agencies to publish a wide range of information.

The Australian Government has commenced the program of initiatives outlined in its response to the Taskforce’s report in accordance with the agreed implementation timetable.

The Department of Finance and Deregulation will report annually on implementation progress of the recommendations of the Government 2.0 Taskforce to the Government through the Secretaries’ Information and Communications Technology Governance Board.

The Gillard Government is committed to creating a culture of public sector openness, transparency and engagement. This Declaration is a demonstration of that commitment.

The Declaration underpins a range of Government initiatives already under way. The establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Government’s broader freedom of information reforms aim to restore trust and integrity in government and drive agencies to proactively release information to the public. The Declaration also reflects one of the key reforms of Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for Reform of Australian Government Administration, which called for more open government.

The Declaration encourages and affirms among Australian Government agencies a culture of openness built on the key principles of informing, engaging and participating with the public. And it acknowledges that the internet holds a crucial role in realising a more open and transparent form of government in this country.

The Declaration is about making more government information available to the public online, and encouraging reuse of that information in new, valuable and potentially unexpected ways. It is about giving Australians more of a say in forming the policy and delivering the services that have an influence on their lives. It is about enabling government agencies and individual public servants to be more innovative and more responsive to input and feedback, while still maintaining the high ethical and professional standards we expect.

I believe that the Declaration lays an important foundation in implementing our Government 2.0 agenda.  In the spirit of that agenda I urge you to read the Declaration and welcome your ongoing feedback as the Gillard Government implements a culture of openness and works towards a more participatory form of government.

Lindsay Tanner

Minister for Finance and Deregulation

Putting out documents in ePub format is something my tech team has been talking about for a while, the idea being that in most cases when we publish documents we’ll already have a HTML version that can be converted to ePub fairly quickly. We thought the Government 2.0 Taskforce Report would be an excellent test case.

Government 2.0 Taskforce Report ePub (305k)

There are a few structural changes implemented here that we think make more sense for an e-book reader than in a regular HTML or PDF version of the publication, including:

• Simplified styling, optimised for readability
• Footnotes collated into end-notes

I’m interested in what you make of this. What do you think of the ePub version of the Taskforce report? Is this an appropriate format for these types of publications?  How do you expect to access ePub versions of government publications?  And a broader question: should government release documents in ePub or some other similar format?

Further reading:

• ePub (Wikipedia)
• Web Standards for e-Books (A List Apart)

To address this interest, we have prepared a description of our draft pricing model (RTF, 45k, also available in PDF, 114k, and HTML).  In particular, I am interested in your views about which elements we should be pricing and whether you can identify any other elements, components or dimensions that influence price and thus should be included in the model.

Following the release of the RFT, we need to compare the prices offered.  This comparison could be challenging if some tenderers offer prices based on power usage in high power density implementations, while others offer space based options.  I am keen to hear suggestions on how this comparison may be achieved in a fair way.

In parallel to this project, we are also working with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts on Green ICT issues and are involved with the NABERS working group for data centres.  Aimed at increasing data centre sustainability, this work has suggested that one of the important goals of our pricing model should be to encourage the transparent reporting and monitoring of energy costs.  I would welcome your comments about how this might be best achieved.

Kayelle

The COE is designed to establish principles and standards that will inform the development of government desktop environments. There are many benefits to be gained from this approach.  For instance, if you’re a developer you’ll have a known, standard environment to which to develop. From a government perspective, agencies will be able to share their solutions, security will be enhanced and there should be a reduction in both cost and delivery times. If you would like to read about a similar process in the USA, you can check out http://usgcb.nist.gov/index.html.

If you’d like to know more, please review the attached COE Draft Discussion Paper (RTF, 1.85MB, and also available in HTML) and let us know what you think.

All comments and suggestions posted will be considered. If you’d prefer not to make your comments public, you can email our team at coe@finance.gov.au.  My preference is that you post items directly; however, the choice is yours.

You will be able to comment for about three weeks. We’ll review the comments we receive and, where appropriate, include them in our final version.

In particular, we’re interested in your views on these matters:

• Standards – we’re keen to get as much feedback on the standards as we can, including any additional things that should be included.
• The concept of N-1 application management – does this work in practice, would it ensure that systems are updated appropriately?
• How do you see virtualisation being used to support legacy applications? Can we create a standard when the market and technology is not mature and any form of standard now may lead to vendor lock in later?
• Is the review cycle appropriate?
• The future of application packaging – should application streaming be seen as the future of application delivery?

If you’ve been reading our earlier posts on procurement, you’ll know that this process doesn’t create an obligation on Finance to necessarily respond and that Finance reserves the right to publish or deal with any comments received in any way it wishes to. Finance also reserves the right to use, reproduce or disclose any comments provided including to meet government accountability or reporting requests or requirements.

I look forward to receiving your feedback.

John Sheridan

First Assistant Secretary Agency Services