http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Toronto-Sun-Toronto-s-data-open-but-almost-useless-tp3414p3421.html
debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly. I agree on all
them to fix discrimination, poverty, and other divides. We have a long
way. I think government will always have to supplement the work of
> 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>