What is Gov 2.0? What could be Gov 5.0?

Gov 2.0 = Web 2.2 + Service-Oriented Architecture + Standards + OpenData + OpenLicenses

I find there are many perspectives as to what is Web 2.0 is, let alone what Gov 2.0 can be. In particular, Social Media and Web 2.0 seemed to be used interchangeably. For the Gov 2.0 vision to be a success we need to look beyond Social Media to meet our collective potential. This blog post attempts to concisely outline some commonly accepted definitions, proposes others and offer some personal opinions that I hope will spur debate. While not in the literature, I have arbitrarily added Web 2.1 and Web 2.2 to further classify some key concepts:

Web 1.0 – “Read web”, institutions publish information that people consume.

Web 2.0 – A read – write web or collaborative web or web as a platform. An institution can choose what ever balance of publishing and/or consuming to/from Web 2.0 that meets their business drivers; to provide value added to the organization and their clients or stakeholders. The Web 2.0 “sound bite” has provide a lightning rod for read/write processes and benefits, while other’s argue that it is simply an evolution of Web 1.0. Web 2.0 criteria are diverse and include; harnessing collective intelligence, data is the Intel inside, rich user experience, many devices (e.g. mobile devices), leverage the long tail, innovation in assembly (web as a platform, API, mashups, etc). Source: “Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices”, John Musser, O’Reilly Press ISBN 0-596-52769-1.

Web 2.1 – Web 2.0 powered by Structured Data. Much information in Web 1.0 (websites) and Web 2.0 is unstructured (Facebook, Chat) or loosely structured based on Folksonomies (Blogs, Photos, LinkedIn, etc.). Content is not categorized into known fields making it is difficult or impossible for computer to computer data or information exchange. With content encoded into an XML document according to a known schema (e.g. title or date), content is separated from presentation form. People are free to build their own applications harvesting data and information from numerous sources. Common implementations are RSS news feeds (in a structured XML file), that is then read by one’s preferred news reader or any other application that can read XML. More advanced integration can be done by connecting a variety of Application Programing Interfaces or Widgets programatically or through web-based Rapid Application Development tools including Yahoo! Pipes.

Web 2.2 – Geographic Web 2.0. The issue with the World Wide Web, is, well it is World Wide. People intuitively think and act spatially; often locally. Web 2.2 has made more explicit use of geography through map based mashups (Google Maps, Google Earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth, etc.), geographically encoded news feeds (GeoRSS), location based searches, cell phone GPS, geocoded Flicker photos and Twitter Tweets. Within the Web 2.x parlance there is literature on the GeoWeb stack, primarily by Andrew Turner. This is the tip of iceberg. The geographic information community is well established outside the Web 2.0 world with huge volumes of data, associated web services and standards. “The future web 2.0 internet operating system…will also provide access to data subsystems. The GeoWeb is perhaps the best developed and one of those most worthy studying by anyone concerned with the future of the internet platform. The GeoWeb is multiplayer and multilayer, a rich melange of data and services, full of opportunity.” Source: Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Radar bulletin 2.0.10, Oct. 2008

Web 3.0 – Semantic Web. In a semantic web, words have definitions, aka ontologies, that further classify the unworkable volume of information on the web. For example, if I want to repair the windows in my house, a semantic web will filter out the millions of search results relating to Microsoft Windows. Semantic classification is a method for a large information provider, i.e. governments, to classify data, information and knowledge which will enable consumers to combine relevant, yet heterogeneous sources into their stories.

Social Media is a component of Web 2.0 that provides methods for individuals and organizations to easily “Write” to the Web. Vehicles to share information and knowledge include Wikis, Blogs, Forums, Twitter, etc. Web 2.0 includes Social Media. However, Social Media does not encompass the diversity of Web 2.0 concepts, business processes and technologies. This is an important point as the Social Media community, including professional Social Media Marketing firms/individuals, are active writers/bloggers/twitters; the shear volume of that commentary risk clouding the full potential of Web 2.0 and Gov 2.0 for decision makers.

We are seeing other powerful initiatives that share information and knowledge. In particular I can’t help but think that professional produced, well researched initiatives such as http://www.ted.com/ (Technology, Entertainment, Design), http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com are the start of a new, more powerful, breed of science based social advocacy form of Social Media. “The application of the scientific method for social concern”.

Gov 2.0 – Government as a Platform. Gov 2.0 builds on the Web 2.0 Internet as a Platform principles noted above with a couple of important additions. For governments the value added of Gov 2.0 is leveraging a society’s collective intelligence to solve problems, to grow, by providing access to government data via mechanisms that enable data integration and exploration. To power citizen defined applications, government data needs to be readily accessible with open permissions in usable formats. For example, in Canada, government data is copyright by the Queen in Right of Canada. Irregardless of copyright, permissive licensing can be employed, an example of which is on http://geogratis.gc.ca. Open Data is in keeping with an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) resolution [C(2008)36] Maximising the availability of public sector information for use and re-use based upon presumption of openness as the default rule to facilitate access and re-use.” http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/27/40826024.pdf

Parallel with Web 2.0 APIs, large institutions typically use a Service-Oriented Architecture that publish data to standardized services which then power a wide range of applications. In other words data and web services are application neutral. Suggest governments shift focus from “web-site application development” to publishing to web services which will enable applications inside and outside government. In this way data’s value can be increased by its re-use in new and unforeseen ways.

Hence…..

Gov 2.0 = Web 2.2 + Service-Oriented Architecture + Standards + OpenData + OpenLicenses

And to crystal ball….

Gov 3.0 = Web 3.0 + Gov 2.0 + CopyLeft

Gov 4.0 = Gov 3.0 + democratization of decisions + fragmentation of government services

Gov 5.0 = Migration from governments based on the artificial boundaries of nation states to city-states or areas of similar cultures/values. Transition from services provided by a specific government jurisdiction to “government service clouds”, a multitude of service providers at all scales, potentially with world wide reach.

Consider the United States health care debate. The debate is on the agenda because of the election of a new President. Yet, why are personal health needs based upon the vulgarities of a complex, polarized, political dynamic. One could literally die before a solution is offered by that form of implementation. So, for every $100 of taxes I spend on health, why can I not choose a different economic model or ideological model or linguistic model that will govern where my portion of health tax goes. My preference could be a Canadian based public/private hybrid economic health delivery model delivered in Spanish. I choose models and money flow from the international “government service cloud” which in turn fund the professionals, bricks and mortar of my local hospital. I will explore this further in future articles.

Cameron Wilson, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. Nice post. I strongly support your approach of looking beyond current social media and Enterprise 2.0 trends if we want realise the full potential that Gov 2.0 can be (or, alternately to look beyond the means and deliver on the hype). Like you, I’ve been watching as Gov 2.0 seems to have devolved into “government as a platform”. We can do better.

    Gov 4.0 (from your breakdown above) would seem to be a socially and technically achievable goal. The main challenge will be the cultural transition. We’re changing the role of government in society which, traditionally, involves civil war. I’d prefer a more peaceful transition this time.

    I am somewhat sceptical of Web / Gov 3.0 as a step on the journey, though. I’ve spent my share of time in the trenches of semantic / ontology based approaches, and have the scars to prove it. For all the interesting technology and worthy goals, I just can’t see a semantic / ontology driven approach working in the messy reality that is the real world.

    The big transition I see happening is a move from government being something that happens to us, to government being something we can be involved in. Erasing the barriers between citizens, between citizens and the government, helping us to take responsibility for our future, and work together to make our world a better place. Government moves from being the service delivery platform of last resort, to the arbiter of life events.

    You general elect the government you deserve, and the transparency the Obama campaign provided via Web 2.0 makes this more true now than ever before.

    Government x.0 — the goal we’re working toward — should be a shared framework to help us live together. (With the same reference as above.) Transparent development of policy. Provision (though not necessirly ownership) of shared infrastructure. Support when you need it (helping you find the services you need). Involvement in line with the Greek/Roman ideal (though more inclusive, without exclusions such as women or slaves).

    r.

    PEG

  2. Id have to agree with peter here and his statement about gov 4.0. It does seem highly feasable and honestly some countries are not too far off this mark when it comes to government structure in some facets. Granted this varies globally since information sharing is a very delicate subject along with limitations imposed upon other critera within the gov 4.0 framework due to financial/cultural or social constraints in some countries.

    That being said i believe we are a long way from Gov 5.0 for the following reasons. If physical boundaries were delineated by spatial differences in cultural and social behavior mass restructuring of cities and the services that they provide would need to drastically be altered and re-allocated. Using your example of healthcare where people are allowed to determine where their funding goes… if for example a culture/socially delineated area has a common interest in public healthcare but the closest hospital is located inside an area where the current dilenation group is solely interested in private healthcare issues could arise. This situation would result in stress on current service infrastructure and the development of more land to serve two groups of people who could easily be served with half the infrastructure and resources.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: