Posted by
Nik G on
Jul 07, 2011; 5:54pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Toronto-Sun-Toronto-s-data-open-but-almost-useless-tp3414p3420.html
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.cahttp://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