Working Group - OpenData Standards/Best Practices
Locked
Working Group - OpenData Standards/Best Practices
 
|
Hello
all,
It appears as though
we're all leaning towards "determining the needs/perspectives of the various
communities" who would use/publish OpenData Sets....which, is (as James
indicated earlier) a great place to start.
With that being
said, I've started a GoogleDoc that identifies some of the various communities
with a potential vested in interest in OpenData.
This list will close
on Friday, March 16 so that we may move onto the next level for this Working
Group......determining each community's perspective and needs when it comes to
OpenData.
ACTION ITEM
- Please review this list and add/modify
accordingly
(sharing settings:
anyone can view the document if they have the link)
Thanks and have
yourselves a great one!
@richardpietro |
Re: Working Group - OpenData Standards/Best Practices
|
|
Le 9 mars 2012 à 18:17, Richard Pietro a écrit : > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmQN-UEywlLwdFNGRWw1bFgxTkVsTkN1bko5VFlpY3c#gid=1 > (sharing settings: anyone can view the document if they have the link) Do you scope it to Canada only? Or WorldWide? In Geography, I guess it is important to put OpenStreetMap If WorldWide I strongly recommend you to do the work at W3C. Please let's not reinvent the wheel. I can put you in contact with the appropriate persons. See my previous messages about the workshop and Community Groups. -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ |
Re: Working Group - OpenData Standards/Best Practices
|
|
In reply to this post by Richard Pietro
It's hard to collaborate if the document is "view only".
Since I can't edit... Within data publishers, it's more than governments and corporations. There's individuals, researchers (and a lot of variety between different research communities!), communities like OpenStreetMap as Karl mentioned - each with its own needs/values. Coming up with a full taxonomy of data creators, publishers, and consumers (and then documenting each of them!) is an ambitious project. I think a more successful approach in the short-term may be to take what CCSD has already been collecting from recent calls/exchanges to describe the needs/values of specific communities or common personas. The ambition wouldn't be to be comprehensive, but to show the diversity of perspectives and in doing so to hit on some of the important differences between people/communities. A few simple examples: 1. Developers push hard for machine-readable data, but are less rigorous about authenticity, lineage, accuracy, data collection methodology (often assuming, "Hey, if the government put it on its portal, then it's gotta be okay, right?"). Scientists, on the other hand, are more rigorous about data quality and will even take a PDF if it contains the best quality data. 2. Developers tend to find recency sexy (e.g. what was said in the House of Commons yesterday?). Geologists, on the other hand, work hard to find old data (e.g. a core sample from Antarctica). 3. Companies care a lot about data licensing; for instance, it's very risky to build a product based on data under a revocable license. In the scientific community, I get the sense licenses come up less (I can be totally off-base here, though). You can see developers' priorities in documents like: http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/ The only principles dealing with data quality are "completeness" and "primacy". The others are about recency, (machine) accessibility, licensing and costs. In community informatics and related fields, you'll hear more concerns like "Yes, people have access, but can everyone make use of the data?" Michael Gurstein has some excellent blog posts on this topic: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/ Different communities have different values, and this often creates tension, misunderstanding, dismissiveness, etc. and disagreement over the goals of open data. I should give credit to Tracey Lauriault for getting me thinking along these lines and sharing some of these ideas (I take responsibility for getting anything wrong!). For a scientific perspective on (open) data portals, see her paper: http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13156/14404 On 2012-03-09, at 6:17 PM, Richard Pietro wrote:
|
Re: Working Group - OpenData Standards/Best Practices
|
|
That is really helpful James.
Thank you
t
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |