http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Toronto-Sun-Toronto-s-data-open-but-almost-useless-tp3414p3422.html
FOSS community members use the FOSS software they work on. Events like
working on issues of concern to developing countries are very low. I
developer community, either. Most projects only make progress during
> Thanks, Nik, I think we have pulled out the important points of a
> debate that the Sun article did not describe clearly. I agree on all
> points except the following:
>
> Although developers do amazing things for free, I wouldn't count on
> them to fix discrimination, poverty, and other divides. We have a long
> way to go before there is anything like the level of civic
> responsibility required for government and citizens to rely on a
> community of developers to diminish these divides in any important
> way. I think government will always have to supplement the work of
> developers.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Nik G <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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>>
>