Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost useless

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Toronto’s data open but almost useless
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless

This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that questions data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:

“Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t truly open.

However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in, xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files, those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does a city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or should they re-format the data for the public?  

Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.

The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those creating mashups but not great for lay people.

So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate picture.

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
http://traceyplauriault.ca/

[Frank Warmerdam]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:

> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in,
> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does a
> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they
> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
> should they re-format the data for the public?
> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those creating
> mashups but not great for lay people.
> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
> picture.

Tracey,

I'm not sure if you are actually asking this audience what formats data
should be released in.   In my opinion it is best to release data in close
to the working format within the organization for the reasons you list
- as long as that is at least a reasonably open format.  Providing the
data in alternate, more accessable, formats is also nice if there is the
resources to do that but I think is not critical.

Of course, I may think that partly because I provide tools to transform
between formats!

I believe the city of toronto is still using ESRI SDE as it's data repository.
So shapefiles are fairly easy for them to produce and they are fairly
close to the original data model.  Shapefiles are also very very widely
supported in proprietary and open source GIS software which makes
it a good choice.

It might be nice if they could actually dump it to "file geodatabase" which
can more accurately represent the relationships, fieldnames and such
of SDE.  Unfortunately file geodatabase is substantially less open as a
format though at least there are free tools on some platforms to convert
it into other forms.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

[Karl Dubost]

Le 7 juil. 2011 à 09:22, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit :
> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in,
> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
> are in those formats.

But not always an accessible format. And not an open format (owned by MS).
There is an act of balance to maintain in these choices and indeed in the first steps, there is can the data be reused. Frank is making a good point about it, specifically when you are advocating for open data.

Le 7 juil. 2011 à 09:40, Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
> In my opinion it is best to release data in close
> to the working format within the organization

It is tied to understand first how the organization is working. The workflow of information, the tools used, the people into this workflow to see where you can put hooks that will make the life of people easier. Anything that disturbs the established workflow and/or requires more work from people will fail. Abruptly.


The Linked Data crowd has created a scale for data publishing. Discover the 5 stars of publishing linked Data

    ★         Available on the web (whatever format),
               but with an open license
    ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
               (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
    ★★★     as (2) plus non-proprietary format
               (e.g. CSV instead of excel)
    ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
               (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things,
               so that people can point at your stuff
    ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
               people’s data to provide context
    — http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData

> How does a
> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they
> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
> should they re-format the data for the public?

It depends… :)

--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Glen Newton]

The Toronto Open Data is not an open data license, so it doesn't even
get one star.

"The City may, in its sole discretion, cancel or suspend your access
to the datasets without notice and for any reason, including anything
which the City, in its sole discretion, believes is a breach of these
Terms of Use or is otherwise unlawful or harmful to others." -
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/open_data/open_data_fact_sheet_details?vgnextoid=59986aa8cc819210VgnVCM10000067d60f89RCRD

So if you make an app with their data that pisses-off the Mayor or
some other city apparatchik they can use this catch-all to shut you
down.
More info: http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/2010/07/its-not-open-data-so-stop-calling-it.html

This clause is also problematic:
"Future Changes to Datasets/Terms of Use
 The City may at any time and from time to time add, delete, or change
the datasets or these Terms of Use. Notice of changes may be posted on
the home page for these datasets or this page. Any change is effective
immediately upon posting, unless otherwise stated."

It is problematic as it is not clear whether the TOU changes would be
retroactive or not. If they are retroactive ("arbitrary
retroactivity"), then this is not an open license as it imposes
onerous limitations (the limitation that the ability to use the data
in an app could be pulled after the data has legaly downloaded and an
app created around it). A good example of this:
http://ottawa.openfile.ca/ottawa/file/2010/12/friendly-hackers-unite-ottawas-common-good

-Glen

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Le 7 juil. 2011 à 09:22, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit :
>> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in,
>> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
>> are in those formats.
>
> But not always an accessible format. And not an open format (owned by MS).
> There is an act of balance to maintain in these choices and indeed in the first steps, there is can the data be reused. Frank is making a good point about it, specifically when you are advocating for open data.
>
> Le 7 juil. 2011 à 09:40, Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
>> In my opinion it is best to release data in close
>> to the working format within the organization
>
> It is tied to understand first how the organization is working. The workflow of information, the tools used, the people into this workflow to see where you can put hooks that will make the life of people easier. Anything that disturbs the established workflow and/or requires more work from people will fail. Abruptly.
>
>
> The Linked Data crowd has created a scale for data publishing. Discover the 5 stars of publishing linked Data
>
>    ★         Available on the web (whatever format),
>               but with an open license
>    ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
>               (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
>    ★★★     as (2) plus non-proprietary format
>               (e.g. CSV instead of excel)
>    ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
>               (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things,
>               so that people can point at your stuff
>    ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
>               people’s data to provide context
>    — http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData
>
>> How does a
>> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they
>> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
>> should they re-format the data for the public?
>
> It depends… :)
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> Montréal, QC, Canada
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

-

[Nik G]

The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open" until the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to make the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of open data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open, so that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations, applications, mashups, etc. 

 

The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open data & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's done for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web, mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.

 

City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part of each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural shift and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's pushing the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data is as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather than later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that drastically different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used KML), there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the city.

 

Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect & Pretty, but Outdated.

 

I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort level.

 

Nik Garkusha @Nik_G

http://openhalton.ca

http://port25.ca

 

From: [hidden email]

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost useless

 

Toronto’s data open but almost useless
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless

This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that questions data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:

“Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t truly open.

 

However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in, xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files, those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does a city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or should they re-format the data for the public? 

 

Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.

 

The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those creating mashups but not great for lay people.

 

So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate picture.

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
http://traceyplauriault.ca/

---

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[James McKinney]

Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).

You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
This is the argument the Sun is making.

I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
"open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
data in your open data push."

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open" until
> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to make
> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of open
> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where
> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open, so
> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations, applications,
> mashups, etc.
>
> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open data
> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's done
> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>
> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part of
> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural shift
> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's pushing
> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data is
> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting
> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather than
> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that drastically
> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used KML),
> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without
> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the
> city.
>
> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect &
> Pretty, but Outdated.
>
> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
> level.
>
> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
> http://openhalton.ca
> http://port25.ca
>
> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
> To: civicaccess discuss
> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost
> useless
>
> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>
> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that questions
> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>
>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic
>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>> truly open.
>
>
> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in,
> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does a
> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they
> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
> should they re-format the data for the public?
>
> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>
> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those creating
> mashups but not great for lay people.
>
> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
> picture.
> --
> Tracey P. Lauriault
> 613-234-2805
> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

[Nik G]

James,

While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also important
to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
(http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
but in the context of this discussion: data is data, it's just 'raw facts'
in a specific file or feed format. So, if the article was a piece on
pros/cons of a certain file format, and whether citizens are more
confortable with one vs. the other, it's a whole different story.

What the article perhaps MEANT to say, and what you're really talking about
is the need for Information vs. just Data. I couldn't agree more on the need
for processing of the data, served up to citizens in a citizen-ready form.
What I disagree with is saying that Toronto's approach to open data was a
"problem", particularly vs. other cities, resulting in _data_ that was
useless. It's not about the data, and the article is really discussing the
need for more information.  There are many ways to help make _data_ more
useful by processing it into information that non-tech savvy citizens will
find "useful". Making information more available is an important step, but
hardly an indication of the _data_ being useless.

Lastly, you state it's not enough to rely on developers, and that
"developers do not have hearts of gold". I beg to differ. Many develop &
participate in communities like FOSS because they are motivated by the
process of learning, creating something for others & making our society
better. There's absolutely a wealth of resources, skills & interest that
exists within these communities, and Governments need to learn how engage
and participate within these communities. That's when they can rely less on
our taxpayer's dollars to get information out citizens, and more on
communities who are eager to get their hands on ANY data -- to make it into
useful information.

Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
http://openhalton.ca
http://port25.ca


-----Original Message-----
From: James McKinney
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:54 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
almost useless

Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).

You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
This is the argument the Sun is making.

I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
"open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
data in your open data push."

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open"
> until
> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to
> make
> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of
> open
> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where
> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open,
> so
> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations,
> applications,
> mashups, etc.
>
> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open
> data
> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's
> done
> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>
> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part
> of
> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural
> shift
> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's
> pushing
> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data
> is
> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting
> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather
> than
> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that
> drastically
> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used
> KML),
> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without
> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the
> city.
>
> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect
> &
> Pretty, but Outdated.
>
> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
> level.
>
> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
> http://openhalton.ca
> http://port25.ca
>
> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
> To: civicaccess discuss
> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost
> useless
>
> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>
> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that
> questions
> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>
>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic
>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>> truly open.
>
>
> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data
> in,
> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does
> a
> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that
> they
> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
> should they re-format the data for the public?
>
> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>
> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those
> creating
> mashups but not great for lay people.
>
> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
> picture.
> --
> Tracey P. Lauriault
> 613-234-2805
> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss 

[James McKinney]

Thanks, Nik, I think we have pulled out the important points of a
debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly. I agree on all
points except the following:

Although developers do amazing things for free, I wouldn't count on
them to fix discrimination, poverty, and other divides. We have a long
way to go before there is anything like the level of civic
responsibility required for government and citizens to rely on a
community of developers to diminish these divides in any important
way. I think government will always have to supplement the work of
developers.

James

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> James,
>
> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also important
> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
> but in the context of this discussion: data is data, it's just 'raw facts'
> in a specific file or feed format. So, if the article was a piece on
> pros/cons of a certain file format, and whether citizens are more
> confortable with one vs. the other, it's a whole different story.
>
> What the article perhaps MEANT to say, and what you're really talking about
> is the need for Information vs. just Data. I couldn't agree more on the need
> for processing of the data, served up to citizens in a citizen-ready form.
> What I disagree with is saying that Toronto's approach to open data was a
> "problem", particularly vs. other cities, resulting in _data_ that was
> useless. It's not about the data, and the article is really discussing the
> need for more information.  There are many ways to help make _data_ more
> useful by processing it into information that non-tech savvy citizens will
> find "useful". Making information more available is an important step, but
> hardly an indication of the _data_ being useless.
>
> Lastly, you state it's not enough to rely on developers, and that
> "developers do not have hearts of gold". I beg to differ. Many develop &
> participate in communities like FOSS because they are motivated by the
> process of learning, creating something for others & making our society
> better. There's absolutely a wealth of resources, skills & interest that
> exists within these communities, and Governments need to learn how engage
> and participate within these communities. That's when they can rely less on
> our taxpayer's dollars to get information out citizens, and more on
> communities who are eager to get their hands on ANY data -- to make it into
> useful information.
>
> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
> http://openhalton.ca
> http://port25.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: James McKinney
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:54 PM
> To: civicaccess discuss
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
> almost useless
>
> Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
> terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
> asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
> open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
> not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
> technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
> government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
> The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
> data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
> just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
> therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).
>
> You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
> build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
> that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
> apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
> and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
> not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
> Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
> enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
> This is the argument the Sun is making.
>
> I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
> "open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
> data in your open data push."
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open"
>> until
>> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to
>> make
>> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of
>> open
>> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where
>> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open,
>> so
>> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations,
>> applications,
>> mashups, etc.
>>
>> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
>> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open
>> data
>> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
>> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's
>> done
>> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
>> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
>> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
>> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>>
>> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part
>> of
>> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural
>> shift
>> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's
>> pushing
>> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
>> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data
>> is
>> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting
>> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather
>> than
>> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that
>> drastically
>> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
>> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
>> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used
>> KML),
>> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without
>> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the
>> city.
>>
>> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect
>> &
>> Pretty, but Outdated.
>>
>> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
>> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
>> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
>> level.
>>
>> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
>> http://openhalton.ca
>> http://port25.ca
>>
>> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
>> To: civicaccess discuss
>> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost
>> useless
>>
>> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
>> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>>
>> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that
>> questions
>> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>>
>>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic
>>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>>> truly open.
>>
>>
>> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data
>> in,
>> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
>> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
>> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does
>> a
>> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that
>> they
>> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
>> should they re-format the data for the public?
>>
>> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
>> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
>> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
>> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
>> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>>
>> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
>> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those
>> creating
>> mashups but not great for lay people.
>>
>> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
>> picture.
>> --
>> Tracey P. Lauriault
>> 613-234-2805
>> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

[James McKinney]

P.S.: The FOSS community is not a very good example of developer
goodwill, as there is a great deal of self-interest in the endeavour.
FOSS community members use the FOSS software they work on. Events like
RHoK are organized specifically because the number of developers
working on issues of concern to developing countries are very low. I
would not overestimate the size or the activity level of the civic
developer community, either. Most projects only make progress during
hackfests.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Nik, I think we have pulled out the important points of a
> debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly. I agree on all
> points except the following:
>
> Although developers do amazing things for free, I wouldn't count on
> them to fix discrimination, poverty, and other divides. We have a long
> way to go before there is anything like the level of civic
> responsibility required for government and citizens to rely on a
> community of developers to diminish these divides in any important
> way. I think government will always have to supplement the work of
> developers.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also important
>> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
>> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
>> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
>> but in the context of this discussion: data is data, it's just 'raw facts'
>> in a specific file or feed format. So, if the article was a piece on
>> pros/cons of a certain file format, and whether citizens are more
>> confortable with one vs. the other, it's a whole different story.
>>
>> What the article perhaps MEANT to say, and what you're really talking about
>> is the need for Information vs. just Data. I couldn't agree more on the need
>> for processing of the data, served up to citizens in a citizen-ready form.
>> What I disagree with is saying that Toronto's approach to open data was a
>> "problem", particularly vs. other cities, resulting in _data_ that was
>> useless. It's not about the data, and the article is really discussing the
>> need for more information.  There are many ways to help make _data_ more
>> useful by processing it into information that non-tech savvy citizens will
>> find "useful". Making information more available is an important step, but
>> hardly an indication of the _data_ being useless.
>>
>> Lastly, you state it's not enough to rely on developers, and that
>> "developers do not have hearts of gold". I beg to differ. Many develop &
>> participate in communities like FOSS because they are motivated by the
>> process of learning, creating something for others & making our society
>> better. There's absolutely a wealth of resources, skills & interest that
>> exists within these communities, and Governments need to learn how engage
>> and participate within these communities. That's when they can rely less on
>> our taxpayer's dollars to get information out citizens, and more on
>> communities who are eager to get their hands on ANY data -- to make it into
>> useful information.
>>
>> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
>> http://openhalton.ca
>> http://port25.ca
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: James McKinney
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:54 PM
>> To: civicaccess discuss
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
>> almost useless
>>
>> Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
>> terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
>> asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
>> open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
>> not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
>> technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
>> government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
>> The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
>> data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
>> just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
>> therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).
>>
>> You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
>> build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
>> that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
>> apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
>> and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
>> not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
>> Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
>> enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
>> This is the argument the Sun is making.
>>
>> I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
>> "open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
>> data in your open data push."
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open"
>>> until
>>> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to
>>> make
>>> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of
>>> open
>>> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where
>>> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open,
>>> so
>>> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations,
>>> applications,
>>> mashups, etc.
>>>
>>> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
>>> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open
>>> data
>>> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
>>> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's
>>> done
>>> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
>>> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
>>> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
>>> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>>>
>>> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part
>>> of
>>> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural
>>> shift
>>> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's
>>> pushing
>>> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
>>> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data
>>> is
>>> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting
>>> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather
>>> than
>>> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that
>>> drastically
>>> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
>>> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
>>> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used
>>> KML),
>>> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without
>>> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the
>>> city.
>>>
>>> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect
>>> &
>>> Pretty, but Outdated.
>>>
>>> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
>>> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
>>> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
>>> level.
>>>
>>> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
>>> http://openhalton.ca
>>> http://port25.ca
>>>
>>> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
>>> To: civicaccess discuss
>>> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost
>>> useless
>>>
>>> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
>>> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>>>
>>> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that
>>> questions
>>> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>>>
>>>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic
>>>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>>>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>>>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>>>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>>>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>>>> truly open.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data
>>> in,
>>> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
>>> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
>>> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does
>>> a
>>> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that
>>> they
>>> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
>>> should they re-format the data for the public?
>>>
>>> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
>>> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
>>> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
>>> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
>>> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>>>
>>> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
>>> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those
>>> creating
>>> mashups but not great for lay people.
>>>
>>> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
>>> picture.
>>> --
>>> Tracey P. Lauriault
>>> 613-234-2805
>>> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>

[James McKinney]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also important
> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),

Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.

[Glen Newton]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders.

1 - It is not clear to me what "citizen-ready" means
2 - "usable by all stakeholders" makes it even less clear to me

Could you explain what you mean by "citizen-ready"? The way you are
using it suggests it should be obvious to me. :-)
I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
useful thing.

Thanks,
Glen


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also important
>> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
>> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
>> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
>
> Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
> available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
> agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
> term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
> agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

--

-

[Nik G]

Wouldn't it be great to agree not to define another new term? 'Data' and
'Information' are good enough. Public = Publically Available is hopefully
obvious too :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Newton
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:53 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
almost useless

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders.

1 - It is not clear to me what "citizen-ready" means
2 - "usable by all stakeholders" makes it even less clear to me

Could you explain what you mean by "citizen-ready"? The way you are
using it suggests it should be obvious to me. :-)
I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
useful thing.

Thanks,
Glen


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also
>> important
>> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
>> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
>> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
>
> Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
> available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
> agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
> term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
> agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

--

-
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss 

[Nik G]

Totally agree that dev's won't fix _all_ world problems. What I'm hoping to
see more is the recognition by governments that their role is changing from
infrastructure builders to community builders, which is how they can scale
through others to address things like making data more useful. I'm with you
on helping set the "direction", as at least in theory government represents
people, hence should help guide in which direction the community as a whole
can invest.

Hoping to see that kind of a gov't involvement with the Community,
Collaboration, to create a more Connected experience (Those are the "3 C's"
that I rant about in my talk on what an Open Gov Platform of the Future may
look like) http://su.pr/2H9y9o

I am happy to see Toronto run with Open Data, would be even happier to see
focusing investments into RHoK type events, hackathons, etc. to drive more
utility out of the data the opened.

Nik


-----Original Message-----
From: James McKinney
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:05 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
almost useless

Thanks, Nik, I think we have pulled out the important points of a
debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly. I agree on all
points except the following:

Although developers do amazing things for free, I wouldn't count on
them to fix discrimination, poverty, and other divides. We have a long
way to go before there is anything like the level of civic
responsibility required for government and citizens to rely on a
community of developers to diminish these divides in any important
way. I think government will always have to supplement the work of
developers.

James

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> James,
>
> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also
> important
> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
> but in the context of this discussion: data is data, it's just 'raw facts'
> in a specific file or feed format. So, if the article was a piece on
> pros/cons of a certain file format, and whether citizens are more
> confortable with one vs. the other, it's a whole different story.
>
> What the article perhaps MEANT to say, and what you're really talking
> about
> is the need for Information vs. just Data. I couldn't agree more on the
> need
> for processing of the data, served up to citizens in a citizen-ready form.
> What I disagree with is saying that Toronto's approach to open data was a
> "problem", particularly vs. other cities, resulting in _data_ that was
> useless. It's not about the data, and the article is really discussing the
> need for more information.  There are many ways to help make _data_ more
> useful by processing it into information that non-tech savvy citizens will
> find "useful". Making information more available is an important step, but
> hardly an indication of the _data_ being useless.
>
> Lastly, you state it's not enough to rely on developers, and that
> "developers do not have hearts of gold". I beg to differ. Many develop &
> participate in communities like FOSS because they are motivated by the
> process of learning, creating something for others & making our society
> better. There's absolutely a wealth of resources, skills & interest that
> exists within these communities, and Governments need to learn how engage
> and participate within these communities. That's when they can rely less
> on
> our taxpayer's dollars to get information out citizens, and more on
> communities who are eager to get their hands on ANY data -- to make it
> into
> useful information.
>
> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
> http://openhalton.ca
> http://port25.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: James McKinney
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:54 PM
> To: civicaccess discuss
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
> almost useless
>
> Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
> terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
> asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
> open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
> not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
> technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
> government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
> The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
> data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
> just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
> therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).
>
> You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
> build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
> that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
> apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
> and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
> not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
> Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
> enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
> This is the argument the Sun is making.
>
> I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
> "open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
> data in your open data push."
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open"
>> until
>> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to
>> make
>> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of
>> open
>> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon,
>> where
>> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open,
>> so
>> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations,
>> applications,
>> mashups, etc.
>>
>> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
>> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open
>> data
>> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
>> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's
>> done
>> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
>> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
>> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
>> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>>
>> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part
>> of
>> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural
>> shift
>> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's
>> pushing
>> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
>> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data
>> is
>> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in
>> getting
>> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather
>> than
>> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that
>> drastically
>> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
>> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
>> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used
>> KML),
>> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats
>> without
>> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by
>> the
>> city.
>>
>> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect
>> &
>> Pretty, but Outdated.
>>
>> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
>> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
>> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
>> level.
>>
>> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
>> http://openhalton.ca
>> http://port25.ca
>>
>> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
>> To: civicaccess discuss
>> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
>> almost
>> useless
>>
>> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
>> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>>
>> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that
>> questions
>> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>>
>>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local
>>> designer/developer/academic
>>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>>> truly open.
>>
>>
>> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data
>> in,
>> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
>> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
>> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does
>> a
>> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that
>> they
>> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
>> should they re-format the data for the public?
>>
>> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
>> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
>> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
>> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
>> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>>
>> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
>> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those
>> creating
>> mashups but not great for lay people.
>>
>> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
>> picture.
>> --
>> Tracey P. Lauriault
>> 613-234-2805
>> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss 

[James McKinney]

Yes, perhaps data vs. information, available vs. accessible are better
terms to use as Nik suggests.

What I'm pointing out is that open data is available to all (with an
Internet connection), but not accessible to all. Not everyone who
would benefit from open data is able to benefit from it, due to lack
of technical expertise, for example. Take, for example, open data on
the locations and other metadata for homeless shelters. Imagine that
through some telecenter initiative, a homeless person gets access to
the Shapefile published by the town of Podunk. Unless they happens to
have the technical skills, they can't benefit from it. If some
well-meaning developer made an iPhone app plotting the nearest
homeless shelters on a map, they'll probably never see it. An example
effective route to making this data accessible to homeless people
would be for some local NGO (or the government itself) to take that
data and print a map to distribute.

The debate is whether government should make data both available and
accessible, or to just make it available and rely on NGOs, developers
and others to make it accessible, i.e. designed and structured so as
to be usable by the broad public. Hope that clarifies what I meant!

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be great to agree not to define another new term? 'Data' and
> 'Information' are good enough. Public = Publically Available is hopefully
> obvious too :)
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:53 PM
> To: civicaccess discuss
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
> almost useless
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
>> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders.
>
> 1 - It is not clear to me what "citizen-ready" means
> 2 - "usable by all stakeholders" makes it even less clear to me
>
> Could you explain what you mean by "citizen-ready"? The way you are
> using it suggests it should be obvious to me. :-)
> I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
> useful thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also
>>> important
>>> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
>>> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
>>>
>>> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
>>
>> Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
>> available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
>> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
>> agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
>> term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
>> agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[David Eaves]

My take on reading the article is that it is a question of having the data in multiple formats - some of which are easier for people to engage with, although I'm doubtful about what that means for accessibility. Indeed, I've no idea what accessible means. Being able to look at data points in a google map doesn't magically make the data accessible - it means you can look at it, but you may be in no better position to draw conclusions, analyze or mash it up with something else then you were before. Take the city of Toronto's Wellbeing site. This seems to conform well with the definition of accessible that is being used in this discussion. The problem is... none of the data is open (not it even in the "not" open way data shared on toronto.ca/open is). It simple is not being shared at all. This means all people can do is look at the data, no one can do anything with it. (My understanding is there plan is to eventually add this data to the toronto.ca/data portal, which would be great).

Again, feels to me like we are mostly splitting hairs but personally if I have to choose I'm going to advocate for open data over accessible data because
a) accessible is poorly defined here - accessible to do what? What is the use case, they are potentially infinite so is the city supposed to enable all of them; and
b) I can at least (yes, I many need to beg, pay or borrow) make open data accessible. However, often you cannot make accessible data open.

Could the city of Toronto do more, definitely. Would publishing their data sets in multiple formats be better, definitely. So let's encourage governments to do both... but I'd need to get a better understanding of what accessible data means before I'd begin thinking about advocating it before open data.

On 11-07-07 1:18 PM, James McKinney wrote:

Yes, perhaps data vs. information, available vs. accessible are better
terms to use as Nik suggests.

What I'm pointing out is that open data is available to all (with an
Internet connection), but not accessible to all. Not everyone who
would benefit from open data is able to benefit from it, due to lack
of technical expertise, for example. Take, for example, open data on
the locations and other metadata for homeless shelters. Imagine that
through some telecenter initiative, a homeless person gets access to
the Shapefile published by the town of Podunk. Unless they happens to
have the technical skills, they can't benefit from it. If some
well-meaning developer made an iPhone app plotting the nearest
homeless shelters on a map, they'll probably never see it. An example
effective route to making this data accessible to homeless people
would be for some local NGO (or the government itself) to take that
data and print a map to distribute.

The debate is whether government should make data both available and
accessible, or to just make it available and rely on NGOs, developers
and others to make it accessible, i.e. designed and structured so as
to be usable by the broad public. Hope that clarifies what I meant!

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nik G [hidden email] wrote:

Wouldn't it be great to agree not to define another new term? 'Data' and
'Information' are good enough. Public = Publically Available is hopefully
obvious too :)

-----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:53 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
almost useless

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney [hidden email]
wrote:

I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders.

1 - It is not clear to me what "citizen-ready" means
2 - "usable by all stakeholders" makes it even less clear to me

Could you explain what you mean by "citizen-ready"? The way you are
using it suggests it should be obvious to me. :-)
I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
useful thing.

Thanks,
Glen


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney [hidden email]
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G [hidden email] wrote:

While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also
important
to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences

(http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),

Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

-
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[David Eaves]

James, there are always going to be asymmetries in resources and access.

My fear is on this is that you are creating a new condition - data can
only be released if it eliminates these asymmetries. That is simply not
possible. The government can't make data "accessible" to meet the
infinite number of use cases that would eliminate such asymmetries.
Worse, when these arguments come up they are usually done in an effort
to terminate open data policies. If you are opposed to any data set that
one group might be better positioned to exploit than another group - you
are essentially opposed to the release of any or all datasets.

On 11-07-07 1:18 PM, James McKinney wrote:

> Yes, perhaps data vs. information, available vs. accessible are better
> terms to use as Nik suggests.
>
> What I'm pointing out is that open data is available to all (with an
> Internet connection), but not accessible to all. Not everyone who
> would benefit from open data is able to benefit from it, due to lack
> of technical expertise, for example. Take, for example, open data on
> the locations and other metadata for homeless shelters. Imagine that
> through some telecenter initiative, a homeless person gets access to
> the Shapefile published by the town of Podunk. Unless they happens to
> have the technical skills, they can't benefit from it. If some
> well-meaning developer made an iPhone app plotting the nearest
> homeless shelters on a map, they'll probably never see it. An example
> effective route to making this data accessible to homeless people
> would be for some local NGO (or the government itself) to take that
> data and print a map to distribute.
>
> The debate is whether government should make data both available and
> accessible, or to just make it available and rely on NGOs, developers
> and others to make it accessible, i.e. designed and structured so as
> to be usable by the broad public. Hope that clarifies what I meant!
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nik G<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be great to agree not to define another new term? 'Data' and
>> 'Information' are good enough. Public = Publically Available is hopefully
>> obvious too :)
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:53 PM
>> To: civicaccess discuss
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss]Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but
>> almost useless
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
>>> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders.
>> 1 - It is not clear to me what "citizen-ready" means
>> 2 - "usable by all stakeholders" makes it even less clear to me
>>
>> Could you explain what you mean by "citizen-ready"? The way you are
>> using it suggests it should be obvious to me. :-)
>> I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
>> useful thing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> While I agree with you that we're disagreeing on terms, it's also
>>>> important
>>>> to point out that it's not really "Public vs Open" data discussion. You
>>>> probably read Melanie Chernoff's article on the differences
>>>>
>>>> (http://opensource.com/government/10/12/what-%E2%80%9Copen-data%E2%80%9D-means-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t),
>>> Just read the article. I am not using "public data" to mean "publicly
>>> available data". I defined my use of public data as "open data that is
>>> citizen-ready", i.e. usable by all stakeholders. There is no commonly
>>> agreed-upon meaning for "public data", and perhaps there is a better
>>> term for the meaning that I intend. In any case, I think you would
>>> agree that this is in fact a "public vs open" discussion, in my usage.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Karl Dubost]

Le 7 juil. 2011 à 14:05, James McKinney a écrit :
> debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly.

would it be worth to have a kind of open letter from the community here answering the newspaper, and maybe published by the newspaper on what open data means. Because I think we all basically agree on

* what are open data
* what are licenses for open data which promote reuse
* what are the formats. We discussed it already

The disagreement that some people might have are the mission of public services but it is basically orthogonal to open data. In the sense that data open or not, public services give information to citizens that help them take decisions.
Some cities do it better than others but it is quite unrelated to open data.

The interesting part of this discussion could then be. Are the resources used for publishing open data are not used for better analysis and communication to the public :) But here we do not know. Only the people in charge of the city, the City Union organization might know that. It is a different topic.

--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Karl Dubost]

Le 7 juil. 2011 à 14:53, Glen Newton a écrit :
> I think getting consensus (if possible) on the definition would be a
> useful thing.


Publishing Open Government Data
W3C Working Draft 8 September 2009
http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data/


Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web
W3C Interest Group Note 12 May 2009
http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/

specifically "What is Open Government Data?"
http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/#OGD

See also  Open Government Data Principles
https://resource.org/8_principles.html



--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Karl Dubost]

Le 7 juil. 2011 à 16:31, David Eaves a écrit :
> My take on reading the article is that […]

Could we invite William Wolfe-Wylie to join this list?
or at least ask him directly?
his twitter account seems to be
https://twitter.com/wolfewylie


I left a comment to invite him to join.
on the article
and on twitter
https://twitter.com/karlpro/status/89086475320299520


--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Michael Mulley]

I don't think public data, in your usage, is a better conception of
open data; I think it's a different beast. And as loath as I am to
ride into semantic battle, I think "open data" as a concept is
confused often enough that we should be careful about the term.
Already "open data" is a scary term in Ottawa, because "open" has been
such a politicized term lately: semantics are important.

Accessibility/"public data" means, essentially, the creation of
applications. (The Sun article seems to think, kinda fuzzily, that
it's a matter of file formats or some such thing; like Tracey, I don't
think that's correct.) And, as in your homeless shelter map example,
perhaps these applications aren't digital. Okay: I certainly agree
that helping people access information relevant to their lives is a
social good. I've written angry letters about reductions in library
hours. But that wasn't open data activism. And I worry that saying
"open data is good, but public data is better" is like saying
"budgetary data is good, but financial literacy workshops are better":
apples, oranges.

Yes, the ultimate goal of open data policies is to help people access
relevant information. Yes, just tossing data online -- particularly in
Canada, where there's no significant institutional/nonprofit presence
around open data -- will largely result in uses that are either
commercially lucrative or at least somewhat self-interested, i.e.
websites that appeal to the Twitter set. And no, publishing a dataset
does not magically absolve government of all further social
responsibility.

But if we allow "open data" to balloon into "help people with
knowledge!", we'll never get anywhere. Open data still has lots of
benefits: for the potential it provides, it comes at an exceedingly
low cost once cultural barriers are overcome. An ideal open data
policy would include outreach and funding so that data gets used by
outsiders in social useful ways. But if we increase the scope of our
common argument beyond that, into the general provision of
information, we confuse people about what open data is. And given that
the largest challenge facing open data is probably marketing and
cultural change, I think being clear about what we mean is pretty
crucial.


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nik, the argument is not fallacious. You are just disagreeing on
> terms. I agree with your definition of open data. What the Sun is
> asking for is public data, not open data. In brief, public data is
> open data that is citizen-ready. That means ready for all citizens,
> not just those with tech savvy. "Pure" open data is only
> technically-savvy-citizen-ready. You write that it is not the
> government's responsibility to provide public data, only open data.
> The Sun's argument is that the government _ought_ to provide public
> data, not just open data; that it ought to serve all citizens, not
> just the tech-savvy. Much of this data is relevant to everyone,
> therefore everyone ought to be able to use it (so the argument runs).
>
> You write that there's nothing wrong with relying on developers to
> build open-data-based apps for the public, and back it up by saying
> that the public already relies on developers to build all sorts of
> apps. Let's have a look at these other apps. Do they target, engage
> and empower the marginalized, the underprivileged, the poor? No; it's
> not a hot, profitable, or easy market. But what about government?
> Should it also ignore these people? Of course not. That's why it's not
> enough to rely on developers. Developers do not have hearts of gold.
> This is the argument the Sun is making.
>
> I find nothing objectionable with the Sun article. All it's saying is,
> "open data is good, but public data is better; don't forget public
> data in your open data push."
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Nik G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The fallacy of this article's argument is that data isn't "truly open" until
>> the Government builds or implements interfaces, applications & tools to make
>> the data more accessible to non-technical audiences. The whole point of open
>> data is to enable Government as a Platform for others to build upon, where
>> the Government does the least possible to get the data out into the open, so
>> that _others_, not Government, can then build visualizations, applications,
>> mashups, etc.
>>
>> The key to getting more citizen-ready applications & visualizations is
>> fostering community development, working in tandem with the local open data
>> & open gov advocates to scale through others. There's nothing wrong with
>> citizens relying on web-savvy developers to build apps, that's how it's done
>> for thousands of "non-opendata" apps that we use every day on the web,
>> mobile, desktop. The point is that our governments need to build
>> competencies in harnessing the skills & knowledge of communities to take
>> that open data from raw form to a citizen-ready app.
>>
>> City of Toronto has a great strategy in pushing to make open data as part of
>> each department's workflow; it's visionary in that this is a cultural shift
>> and not a point-in-time activity. But as with any initiative that's pushing
>> the cultural, process & technology boundaries, there are cost/benefit and
>> immediacy/relevancy trade-offs. In case of open data, as long as the data is
>> as close to the source, original dataset, there's nothing wrong in getting
>> it out in a machine-readable format under an open license sooner rather than
>> later. By the way, Toronto's catalogue file formats aren't that drastically
>> different from any other catalogue, providing your usual CSV, XML, XLS
>> formats that are "spreadsheet-ready". If it's the geographic formats that
>> _seems_ to be "user unfriendly" (ESRI Shapefile vs. the commonly-used KML),
>> there are also relatively simple ways to convert those GIS formats without
>> having to sacrifice staying close to the original data formats used by the
>> city.
>>
>> Open, Rinse, Repeat is the recipe for success, not Wait Till it's Perfect &
>> Pretty, but Outdated.
>>
>> I'll take open data SOONER rather than later, ANY format rather than no
>> format, and NOT having to wait months or years till it's "perfect", but
>> meets everyone's requirements according to everyone's technical comfort
>> level.
>>
>> Nik Garkusha @Nik_G
>> http://openhalton.ca
>> http://port25.ca
>>
>> From: Tracey P. Lauriault
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:22 AM
>> To: civicaccess discuss
>> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost
>> useless
>>
>> Toronto’s data open but almost useless
>> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/torontos-data-open-but-almost-useless
>>
>> This is the first news article I have seen in Canada to date that questions
>> data access for citizens not just designer/developer/academic community:
>>
>>> “Right now, the primary audience is the local designer/developer/academic
>>> community,” Garner says. “However, we have plans to build it out and
>>> position it more clearly within the context of Open Government in a way
>>> which would have more tangible benefits for a wider audience.”
>>> It’s time for those plans to become action. As long as citizens have to
>>> rely on web-savvy developers to do the hard work for them, the data isn’t
>>> truly open.
>>
>>
>> However, I am not sure which format the article's author wants the data in,
>> xls is probably the lowest common denominator and many of the City's data
>> are in those formats.  The City of Toronto Catalog has ESRI shape files,
>> those are GIS files and there is no making those easier either.  How does a
>> city decide on formats?  Should they be releasing data in the way that they
>> use them in the formats used as part of a city's business processes or
>> should they re-format the data for the public?
>>
>> Geogratis took the approach to release data as they use them.  This keeps
>> their costs down by not adding any work load, it also keeps the data
>> accurate, as conversion can introduce errors in geomatics files.  It also
>> means that users need to know how to work with those formats and do the
>> conversions themselves and bear the risk of errors as well.
>>
>> The article is also a bit erroneous, as the Edmonton Catalog has many
>> formats that are difficult to use by lay people.  Useful for those creating
>> mashups but not great for lay people.
>>
>> So interesting that it brings up citizen use but not quite an accurate
>> picture.
>> --
>> Tracey P. Lauriault
>> 613-234-2805
>> http://traceyplauriault.ca/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>