information vs data
Locked
 
|
i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data".
Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". but seeing: -the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods -the minutes of city council meetings -restaurant health inspection reports -federal information on winning contracts is better described as "information". what say you? I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. |
|
|
Makes sense to me, I like the 'human-readable' sound of information over
data, really the data is just a means to an end. Patrick Michael Lenczner wrote: > i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data". > > Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". > > but seeing: > -the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods > -the minutes of city council meetings > -restaurant health inspection reports > -federal information on winning contracts > > is better described as "information". > > what say you? > > I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens > for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > |
Re: information vs data
|
|
Data and information are good! But I cannot live without data!
Patrick - data are just a means to an end! ohhhh that hurts! :'( all those science data portals are loaded with facts waiting to be visualized! all those statcan facts waiting to be aggregated! all that framework data waiting to be filled with creative content! all those sensors capturing images from space waiting to be analyzed! all those seismic feeds trembling in obscurity! all those road networks waiting for attributes! lists of contaminated terrains are documents filled with point data and their related attributes. reports are aggregated or packaged data! Context. The reason for both my emotional and intellectual attachment to data is as follows: We have tons of information, which in effect is packaged data by the institutions that produce them. Most often the package, report, press release, journal etc. excludes the raw facts it reports. Think of medical and pharmaceutical research scandals. If the data were with the info, then the story could be better scrutinized. An atlas is packaged data. You can look at the maps but you cannot access the data behind their creation, nor grab a few of the data sets and do a correlation analysis on it or create new maps. For example, some hot topics that do not appear in the Atlas of Canada, are an analysis of health + poverty + tobacco consumption + obesity. If we citizens can get the data then we can do the analysis, find the hotspots and plan strategies where they matter most. We can do it in a way that gov departments are reluctant to do for myriad reasons. This is the same with abandoned mines + distance to waterways, or nuclear power plants + population density and so on. It is easy to get information about these issues but reallllllly hard to get the data to support the issues and more importantly to visualize them! For example, that pdf doc with municipal voting bits in it, is information, the packaging makes data extraction difficult. It is true that information may be a more friendly word however knowing about data is really important. Currently only natural scientists discuss data access issues, develop access portals and metadata standards etc. Social science people to a lesser extent. In the civil sector some environmental groups use data. Most orgs that do are well, the Fraser Institute, Pembina Institute, Medical Associations, Suzuki Foundation, Lobby groups, etc. The big kids. Small community orgs do not, and I would argue they need to. We need to get out of disciplinary and sectoral specializations and build new civic knowledge about data. When I explain to people what data are, their potential, why we need them, who uses them, who can purchase them, and who analyzes them, what can be done with them and then point out that they cannot get any! Well Then! They are signing up to purchase data liberation army buttons or berets! Sooo, education here is really important on the topic of data. That was wordy ay! I feel better now though! I like all the intro stuff about community and such sent earlier by CFYAW . ttyl as now I need to have a snow ball fight with 4 short boy people before it gets dark! Tracey Patrick Dinnen wrote: >Makes sense to me, I like the 'human-readable' sound of information over >data, really the data is just a means to an end. > >Patrick > >Michael Lenczner wrote: > > >>i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data". >> >>Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". >> >>but seeing: >>-the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods >>-the minutes of city council meetings >>-restaurant health inspection reports >>-federal information on winning contracts >> >>is better described as "information". >> >>what say you? >> >>I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens >>for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >[hidden email] >http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > > > |
|
|
I never meant to cause you any pain Tracey :-)
I totally agree with all you said below about why data is so important to fight against a culture of just swallowing pre-packaged sanitized info-chunks. But... I still lean towards Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information (though not as strongly as I did). It just has a more generally graspable sound to it to me. I'm envisaging some average person on the street (or on the committee) who hasn't had any contact with us, my feeling is that Information is going to mean more to them ('that's true, we don't have much good information about what those pesky politicians are up to') than Data would ('Data, what's data - sounds like computers to me'). I'm not saying that data isn't the crucial thing here, it is. But that we get to explain exactly why data is the crucial thing to some extra people, who might have been put of by the word Data without context, if we use the more generally known Information. Having said all that, I'm not especially invested in one or the other. I think the name isn't make or break, it's just a label and what we do is the important thing. Patrick Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > Data and information are good! But I cannot live without data! > > Patrick - data are just a means to an end! ohhhh that hurts! :'( > > all those science data portals are loaded with facts waiting to be visualized! > all those statcan facts waiting to be aggregated! > all that framework data waiting to be filled with creative content! > all those sensors capturing images from space waiting to be analyzed! > all those seismic feeds trembling in obscurity! > all those road networks waiting for attributes! > lists of contaminated terrains are documents filled with point data and their related attributes. > reports are aggregated or packaged data! > > Context. The reason for both my emotional and intellectual attachment to data is as follows: > We have tons of information, which in effect is packaged data by the institutions that produce them. Most often the package, report, press release, journal etc. excludes the raw facts it reports. Think of medical and pharmaceutical research scandals. If the data were with the info, then the story could be better scrutinized. An atlas is packaged data. You can look at the maps but you cannot access the data behind their creation, nor grab a few of the data sets and do a correlation analysis on it or create new maps. For example, some hot topics that do not appear in the Atlas of Canada, are an analysis of health + poverty + tobacco consumption + obesity. If we citizens can get the data then we can do the analysis, find the hotspots and plan strategies where they matter most. We can do it in a way that gov departments are reluctant to do for myriad reasons. This is the same with abandoned mines + distance to waterways, or nuclear power plants + population density an > > It is true that information may be a more friendly word however knowing about data is really important. Currently only natural scientists discuss data access issues, develop access portals and metadata standards etc. Social science people to a lesser extent. In the civil sector some environmental groups use data. Most orgs that do are well, the Fraser Institute, Pembina Institute, Medical Associations, Suzuki Foundation, Lobby groups, etc. The big kids. Small community orgs do not, and I would argue they need to. We need to get out of disciplinary and sectoral specializations and build new civic knowledge about data. > > When I explain to people what data are, their potential, why we need them, who uses them, who can purchase them, and who analyzes them, what can be done with them and then point out that they cannot get any! Well Then! They are signing up to purchase data liberation army buttons or berets! Sooo, education here is really important on the topic of data. > > That was wordy ay! I feel better now though! > > I like all the intro stuff about community and such sent earlier by CFYAW . > > ttyl as now I need to have a snow ball fight with 4 short boy people before it gets dark! > Tracey > > > > > Patrick Dinnen wrote: > > >>Makes sense to me, I like the 'human-readable' sound of information over >>data, really the data is just a means to an end. >> >>Patrick >> >>Michael Lenczner wrote: >> >> >> >>>i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data". >>> >>>Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". >>> >>>but seeing: >>>-the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods >>>-the minutes of city council meetings >>>-restaurant health inspection reports >>>-federal information on winning contracts >>> >>>is better described as "information". >>> >>>what say you? >>> >>>I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens >>>for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >>> >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >> >> >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > |
Are we there? Check and see.
|
|
Ahhh! Patrick that is nice! The pain is gone!
I think we are almost there with the about us stuff. What do you all think? If the English stuff is good I can take a crack at the french but would love les yeux de Patrick et Stephane Funny, I could change stuff but I could not change the following on the front page: ["About"] - About this site / Au sujet de ce site ["Participants"] - About us / Au sujet de nous ["Navigation"] This site is a wiki. That means that you can post information to it. For more information go SiteInfo. Cet site internet est un wiki. Vous pouvez donc y ajoutez de l'information. Pour des instructions regarder SiteInfo. Patrick Dinnen wrote: >I never meant to cause you any pain Tracey :-) > >I totally agree with all you said below about why data is so important >to fight against a culture of just swallowing pre-packaged sanitized >info-chunks. But... I still lean towards Citizens for Open Access to >Civic Information (though not as strongly as I did). It just has a more >generally graspable sound to it to me. I'm envisaging some average >person on the street (or on the committee) who hasn't had any contact >with us, my feeling is that Information is going to mean more to them >('that's true, we don't have much good information about what those >pesky politicians are up to') than Data would ('Data, what's data - >sounds like computers to me'). > >I'm not saying that data isn't the crucial thing here, it is. But that >we get to explain exactly why data is the crucial thing to some extra >people, who might have been put of by the word Data without context, if >we use the more generally known Information. > >Having said all that, I'm not especially invested in one or the other. I >think the name isn't make or break, it's just a label and what we do is >the important thing. > >Patrick > > > >Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > >>Data and information are good! But I cannot live without data! >> >>Patrick - data are just a means to an end! ohhhh that hurts! :'( >> >>all those science data portals are loaded with facts waiting to be visualized! >>all those statcan facts waiting to be aggregated! >>all that framework data waiting to be filled with creative content! >>all those sensors capturing images from space waiting to be analyzed! >>all those seismic feeds trembling in obscurity! >>all those road networks waiting for attributes! >>lists of contaminated terrains are documents filled with point data and their related attributes. >>reports are aggregated or packaged data! >> >>Context. The reason for both my emotional and intellectual attachment to data is as follows: >> We have tons of information, which in effect is packaged data by the institutions that produce them. Most often the package, report, press release, journal etc. excludes the raw facts it reports. Think of medical and pharmaceutical research scandals. If the data were with the info, then the story could be better scrutinized. An atlas is packaged data. You can look at the maps but you cannot access the data behind their creation, nor grab a few of the data sets and do a correlation analysis on it or create new maps. For example, some hot topics that do not appear in the Atlas of Canada, are an analysis of health + poverty + tobacco consumption + obesity. If we citizens can get the data then we can do the analysis, find the hotspots and plan strategies where they matter most. We can do it in a way that gov departments are reluctant to do for myriad reasons. This is the same with abandoned mines + distance to waterways, or nuclear power plants + population density an >> >> >d so on. It is easy to get information about these issues but reallllllly hard to get the data to support the issues and more importantly to visualize them! For example, that pdf doc with municipal voting bits in it, is information, the packaging makes data extraction difficult. > > >>It is true that information may be a more friendly word however knowing about data is really important. Currently only natural scientists discuss data access issues, develop access portals and metadata standards etc. Social science people to a lesser extent. In the civil sector some environmental groups use data. Most orgs that do are well, the Fraser Institute, Pembina Institute, Medical Associations, Suzuki Foundation, Lobby groups, etc. The big kids. Small community orgs do not, and I would argue they need to. We need to get out of disciplinary and sectoral specializations and build new civic knowledge about data. >> >>When I explain to people what data are, their potential, why we need them, who uses them, who can purchase them, and who analyzes them, what can be done with them and then point out that they cannot get any! Well Then! They are signing up to purchase data liberation army buttons or berets! Sooo, education here is really important on the topic of data. >> >>That was wordy ay! I feel better now though! >> >>I like all the intro stuff about community and such sent earlier by CFYAW . >> >>ttyl as now I need to have a snow ball fight with 4 short boy people before it gets dark! >>Tracey >> >> >> >> >>Patrick Dinnen wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Makes sense to me, I like the 'human-readable' sound of information over >>>data, really the data is just a means to an end. >>> >>>Patrick >>> >>>Michael Lenczner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data". >>>> >>>>Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". >>>> >>>>but seeing: >>>>-the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods >>>>-the minutes of city council meetings >>>>-restaurant health inspection reports >>>>-federal information on winning contracts >>>> >>>>is better described as "information". >>>> >>>>what say you? >>>> >>>>I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens >>>>for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >[hidden email] >http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Patrick Dinnen
I really like your point tracey - and I think that it should be one of
the mission statements in the "about" section. But I don't think it should be in the name. I don't think it makes for a catchy name and I think that's important. And I'm still not sure if we're loosing anything by not putting that in the name. The focus can be there - and i think it is a central focus that we all agree on - but i'm not sure that putting it in the name does much good. Also: currently there are 8 main points in the "about" section and 5 sub points. IMO that's about 9 too much. I know that some of this content needs to be on the wiki - but I don't think the about section should take longer than 2 minutes to read. right now it's 360 words in english (which means 450 in french probably ;-) I think we should take a look at the points and try to come up with 4-5 that contain most of the others. Then we can have a whole page on "cost-recovery" or privacy/sercurity and explain and debunk those issues there. mike On 11/25/05, Patrick Dinnen <[hidden email]> wrote: > I never meant to cause you any pain Tracey :-) > > I totally agree with all you said below about why data is so important > to fight against a culture of just swallowing pre-packaged sanitized > info-chunks. But... I still lean towards Citizens for Open Access to > Civic Information (though not as strongly as I did). It just has a more > generally graspable sound to it to me. I'm envisaging some average > person on the street (or on the committee) who hasn't had any contact > with us, my feeling is that Information is going to mean more to them > ('that's true, we don't have much good information about what those > pesky politicians are up to') than Data would ('Data, what's data - > sounds like computers to me'). > > I'm not saying that data isn't the crucial thing here, it is. But that > we get to explain exactly why data is the crucial thing to some extra > people, who might have been put of by the word Data without context, if > we use the more generally known Information. > > Having said all that, I'm not especially invested in one or the other. I > think the name isn't make or break, it's just a label and what we do is > the important thing. > > Patrick > > > > Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > Data and information are good! But I cannot live without data! > > > > Patrick - data are just a means to an end! ohhhh that hurts! :'( > > > > all those science data portals are loaded with facts waiting to be visualized! > > all those statcan facts waiting to be aggregated! > > all that framework data waiting to be filled with creative content! > > all those sensors capturing images from space waiting to be analyzed! > > all those seismic feeds trembling in obscurity! > > all those road networks waiting for attributes! > > lists of contaminated terrains are documents filled with point data and their related attributes. > > reports are aggregated or packaged data! > > > > Context. The reason for both my emotional and intellectual attachment to data is as follows: > > We have tons of information, which in effect is packaged data by the institutions that produce them. Most often the package, report, press release, journal etc. excludes the raw facts it reports. Think of medical and pharmaceutical research scandals. If the data were with the info, then the story could be better scrutinized. An atlas is packaged data. You can look at the maps but you cannot access the data behind their creation, nor grab a few of the data sets and do a correlation analysis on it or create new maps. For example, some hot topics that do not appear in the Atlas of Canada, are an analysis of health + poverty + tobacco consumption + obesity. If we citizens can get the data then we can do the analysis, find the hotspots and plan strategies where they matter most. We can do it in a way that gov departments are reluctant to do for myriad reasons. This is the same with abandoned mines + distance to waterways, or nuclear power plants + population density an > d so on. It is easy to get information about these issues but reallllllly hard to get the data to support the issues and more importantly to visualize them! For example, that pdf doc with municipal voting bits in it, is information, the packaging makes data extraction difficult. > > > > It is true that information may be a more friendly word however knowing about data is really important. Currently only natural scientists discuss data access issues, develop access portals and metadata standards etc. Social science people to a lesser extent. In the civil sector some environmental groups use data. Most orgs that do are well, the Fraser Institute, Pembina Institute, Medical Associations, Suzuki Foundation, Lobby groups, etc. The big kids. Small community orgs do not, and I would argue they need to. We need to get out of disciplinary and sectoral specializations and build new civic knowledge about data. > > > > When I explain to people what data are, their potential, why we need them, who uses them, who can purchase them, and who analyzes them, what can be done with them and then point out that they cannot get any! Well Then! They are signing up to purchase data liberation army buttons or berets! Sooo, education here is really important on the topic of data. > > > > That was wordy ay! I feel better now though! > > > > I like all the intro stuff about community and such sent earlier by CFYAW . > > > > ttyl as now I need to have a snow ball fight with 4 short boy people before it gets dark! > > Tracey > > > > > > > > > > Patrick Dinnen wrote: > > > > > >>Makes sense to me, I like the 'human-readable' sound of information over > >>data, really the data is just a means to an end. > >> > >>Patrick > >> > >>Michael Lenczner wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>i think that more people will identify with the word "information" than "data". > >>> > >>>Yes - statscan and mapping is more accurately described as "data". > >>> > >>>but seeing: > >>>-the list of contaminated terrains in montreal neighborhoods > >>>-the minutes of city council meetings > >>>-restaurant health inspection reports > >>>-federal information on winning contracts > >>> > >>>is better described as "information". > >>> > >>>what say you? > >>> > >>>I think we should use both in the wiki - but for the name - citizens > >>>for open access to civic data - i think we should switch. > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > >>>[hidden email] > >>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > >>[hidden email] > >>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |