resources
Locked
 
|
Working paper No 006The Canadian Data Liberation Initiative. An Idea worth Considering?http://www.ihsn.org/home/index.php?q=activities/working-papers-- Tracey P. Lauriault Post Doctoral Fellow Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that. I have looked at DLI documents in the recent
past and wondered about the relevance today. The words "Canadian Data Liberation" sound great but then I realized it was data for some and not for all. At the same time if open data continues then the role of DLI members may have to change or even cease to exist- some individuals may feel uncomfortable with this. Perhaps others have a better understanding or better thoughts on this. ... gerry tychon On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: > Working paper No 006 > > The Canadian Data Liberation Initiative. An Idea worth Considering? > > http://www.ihsn.org/home/index.php?q=activities/working-papers > > -- > Tracey P. Lauriault > Post Doctoral Fellow > Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre > https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault > http://datalibre.ca/ > 613-234-2805 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
|
|
The DLI was originally intended to be free for all, but alas StatCan did not allow for it. Because not all statcan data are free, the DLI must still operate to ensure Canadian faculty and students have access to canadian data. The DLI is also excellent in terms of capacity building, has a super smart list with expert data and research librarians from across the country. The DLI folks know their role will have to change, however, for the time being, research libraries are purchasing data and are bound by the licences regulating how those data can be disseminated.
The DLI will really change if data become free, but I hope, they will stay together as a group, as it is one of the smartest cross Canada group of people on the topic of data in research libraries. Cheers t On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Gerry Tychon <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks for posting that. I have looked at DLI documents in the recent -- Tracey P. Lauriault Post Doctoral Fellow Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Gerry Tychon
Hi Gerry,
I think this is important point. I think we have to separate acknowledge where DLI has been effective and what it was not (I think) intended to do. As a way of training people and engaging students and academics in understanding and using data, DLI has been fantastic. My sense is that this was what its mission became and it deserves a enormous amount of credit for executing on it well. This is also a very important part of the open data puzzle and it needs continued support. As a model for how data should be made open - which to be clear, I don't believe was DLI's primary mission, so this is not a critique, just a point of clarification - I don't think DLI is a particular good or effective model. The notion of access it legitimized was highly limited both in who could access it and what they could access. If it were construed as a model for open data it would, in my mind, represent an unacceptable compromise. I also don't think the history of open data suggests that DLI played a role in transforming the political or public policy equation. I know when I started off thinking about open data I didn't know it existed, and once we did, our goal was to make it redundant, not to model its data sharing arrangements in other regions. (however I would LOVE to model its approach to education in everywhere) Again I want to stress, this is not a critique of DLI, which I think does important important work - particularly around engaging a number of key stakeholders. And the report is great in that it focuses on this aspect of DLI and does not see it as a bridge from closed to open data. Cheers, Dave Eaves On 2012-09-04, at 1:37 PM, Gerry Tychon wrote: > Thanks for posting that. I have looked at DLI documents in the recent > past and wondered about the relevance today. The words "Canadian Data > Liberation" sound great but then I realized it was data for some and > not for all. At the same time if open data continues then the role of > DLI members may have to change or even cease to exist- some > individuals may feel uncomfortable with this. > Perhaps others have a better understanding or better thoughts on this. > > ... gerry tychon > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Working paper No 006 >> >> The Canadian Data Liberation Initiative. An Idea worth Considering? >> >> http://www.ihsn.org/home/index.php?q=activities/working-papers >> >> -- >> Tracey P. Lauriault >> Post Doctoral Fellow >> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre >> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault >> http://datalibre.ca/ >> 613-234-2805 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 |
|
|
My impression was always that DLI was partially a political tool to separate academia from the rest of the open data movement, effectively removing some of our most effective allies from the political process. Since academia already had the data, they wouldn't be fighting alongside those of us outside of academia to gain access to data. Thoughts? I guess I never thought of the DLI as a good thing for open data -- sort of like institution-wide software site licenses and Access Copyright being a bad thing for FLOSS and OA. |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
The DLI back in the day was the best there was. It was also one of
the first to use FTP to transfer data and it made data available to Canadians at a time when none were available and Yes their initial mandate was open, but like subscriptions to pay for journals in libraries they were restricted by the regressive policies of StatCan. The DLI also spearheaded a consortium model, which spearheaded collaboration between research libraries. The DLI consortium model was emulated by others such as the Community Data Program which made data available to thousands of Canadian social policy NGOs during a time when data were not available. Again, fostering a national collaboration between local and community based organizations. These were the first steps on the way to open data, data access and the democratization of data used by civil society for NGOs and it was part of the education process for a cadre of students, profs, and research librarians who became politicized around the topic of access. Especially when students realized that access stopped when they stopped paying tuition. It also enabled Canadians to study Canadians, as prior to this time, data were so expensive, that people studied the US. Furthermore, the founders of the DLI, Watkins & Boyko, founded IASSIST, and build major data sharing collaborative portals, and workspaces. These collaborations also expanded their asks to other government departments for data as they demonstrated what could be done with them. Is it the best model for free data, perhaps not, but data remain for sale such as polling data, marketing surveys, areoplans, satellite companies sell data, and so on, thus to re-disseminate data that iare for sale from the private sector or still cost recovery gov (which should disappear), it remains one of the best models. The founders of the DLI are also open source folks. It would be good if you all read the paper, it gives the context as to why it became what it did. Also, the folks invloved with DLI are for access to data for all, they just did not call it open data. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi Gerry, > > I think this is important point. I think we have to separate acknowledge where DLI has been effective and what it was not (I think) intended to do. > > As a way of training people and engaging students and academics in understanding and using data, DLI has been fantastic. My sense is that this was what its mission became and it deserves a enormous amount of credit for executing on it well. This is also a very important part of the open data puzzle and it needs continued support. > > As a model for how data should be made open - which to be clear, I don't believe was DLI's primary mission, so this is not a critique, just a point of clarification - I don't think DLI is a particular good or effective model. The notion of access it legitimized was highly limited both in who could access it and what they could access. If it were construed as a model for open data it would, in my mind, represent an unacceptable compromise. I also don't think the history of open data suggests that DLI played a role in transforming the political or public policy equation. I know when I started off thinking about open data I didn't know it existed, and once we did, our goal was to make it redundant, not to model its data sharing arrangements in other regions. (however I would LOVE to model its approach to education in everywhere) > > Again I want to stress, this is not a critique of DLI, which I think does important important work - particularly around engaging a number of key stakeholders. And the report is great in that it focuses on this aspect of DLI and does not see it as a bridge from closed to open data. > > > Cheers, > Dave Eaves > > On 2012-09-04, at 1:37 PM, Gerry Tychon wrote: > > > Thanks for posting that. I have looked at DLI documents in the recent > > past and wondered about the relevance today. The words "Canadian Data > > Liberation" sound great but then I realized it was data for some and > > not for all. At the same time if open data continues then the role of > > DLI members may have to change or even cease to exist- some > > individuals may feel uncomfortable with this. > > Perhaps others have a better understanding or better thoughts on this. > > > > ... gerry tychon > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Working paper No 006 > >> > >> The Canadian Data Liberation Initiative. An Idea worth Considering? > >> > >> http://www.ihsn.org/home/index.php?q=activities/working-papers > >> > >> -- > >> Tracey P. Lauriault > >> Post Doctoral Fellow > >> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre > >> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault > >> http://datalibre.ca/ > >> 613-234-2805 > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 -- Tracey P. Lauriault Post Doctoral Fellow Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault http://datalibre.ca/ 613-234-2805 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |