I would strongly suggest that if you are targetting C-levels and directors then there should be NO mention of specific technologies. The document needs to stand on its own as a roadmap to a destination that everyone can agree is wrth reaching, and supports existing business models (or at least proposes new ones).

Seb - I agree, although I think it'll be hard!

Do you think (see comments on "the problem" page) that - for instance - REST is "a technology"...?

It could be interesting (useful) to include some 'user centered' stuff in the final document: User Needs (past, current, future), User Benefits, User Stories (i.e. case studies/use cases), User Modes, Museum Benefits (from the 'users' within the museum's perspective). It should really 'bring home' what this is about, rather than making it a 'technology' story, make it a 'user' story.

In fact, it may even be interesting to title the 'final document' less about 'machine connectivity' and more about changing user modes and needs. Make it clear that it's not technology that's driving these recommendations, but an actual change in needs.

ok so if we are talking needs then we need to actually check that the users are wanting this . . . . WHO are these users? what is their technographic profile?

GMTA: http://museum-api.pbwiki.com/Use-cases

I think in the first instance - and for the purposes of this bit of work - the users are internal museum staff who are commissioning, editing, building and otherwise exposing museum content for consumption online. I see the outcome evangelising the "API approach" which - as we know - makes sense from pretty much every direction.

Ultimately, of course, the users will be the people who go to the various websites, but even then it is unlikely that they'll know - or care about - the underthehoodness which is powering their experience. Longer term if museums can get themselves known as being providers of great quality content for consumption by "other developers", then great - although this may well be an aspiration too far...

I think we need tools for advocacy. We can always debate specific technologies between ourselves, but what really counts is: this is why it's important; here's how it will save work, time, money, duplicated effort; here's how it will benefit your users; here's where it helps you hit your targets and/or directly raise revenue.

And also: here's how it works in your tiny museum that has no online presence; in your small museum that has participated in a partnership project and has records online in some form but maybe you can't get at them; in your medium sized museum with reasonable but stretched IT resources; and here for the nationals.

With a bit of: here's what we learnt from earlier projects - NOF Digi, etc; here's how this relates to the bigger conversations that are happening at English Heritage; MLA; the Collections Trust.