Please forgive my formatting if it is not standard. Listservs are not my native discussion grounds :)
OGD may make some divisions more poignant (effective use) while improving others (availability). But it's in no way creating a gap that wasn't already there.
I think this is an excellent distinction to make and I agree with James here. I think one thing to keep in mind that Michael brought up is that there is at least some responsibility for government to reduce the effective use division when it is reasonably cost-effective to do so. I think an obvious example of this is the city of Vancouver's OD catalogue, which displays geographical data using Google and Bing maps as an alternative to using .shp, .dwg, or .kmz files. It takes advantage of the fact that most users have had pretty extensive experience using these online mapping services and there is no need to provide any extra training or instruction. It's an elegant and simple feature that adds a lot of usability to the spatial data that the city is providing.
-Liam C.
----------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:25:45 -0400
From: James McKinney <[hidden email]>
To: David Eaves <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New
Divide
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
What I think Herb was saying, and that David expresses more clearly, is that cautions about OGD (however well intended) are interpreted as reasons not to do OGD, or problems with doing OGD, that ultimately discourage governments from doing OGD, who are desperately in need of encouragement from our point of view.
I think there is disagreement as to whether or not there is an emerging "data divide." I've already expressed my opinion on this: there is no new divide. It's just the same old divisions we're familiar with. OGD may make some divisions more poignant (effective use) while improving others (availability). But it's in no way creating a gap that wasn't already there. If we imagine a ladder with a truly open government at the top, then I think one of the first rungs is availability, which OGD addresses. As we climb the ladder, we shift the gap up the ladder - the goal being to get to the top and shift it over the top (so to speak). The cautions about OGD usually sound like reasons to not even get on that early OGD rung on the ladder, which is a great shame.
Another point: Part of the OGD movement's success is due to its focus. I guess we're also disagreeing as to whether or not that focus is too limited. In principle, I sympathize with your criticisms, but in practice, I think it was the most effective strategy to make progress on these issues.
Locked
