Re: Toronto Sun: Toronto’s data open but almost useless

Posted by Michael Mulley on Jul 07, 2011; 10:08pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Toronto-Sun-Toronto-s-data-open-but-almost-useless-tp3414p3433.html

I don't think public data, in your usage, is a better conception of
open data; I think it's a different beast. And as loath as I am to
ride into semantic battle, I think "open data" as a concept is
confused often enough that we should be careful about the term.
Already "open data" is a scary term in Ottawa, because "open" has been
such a politicized term lately: semantics are important.

Accessibility/"public data" means, essentially, the creation of
applications. (The Sun article seems to think, kinda fuzzily, that
it's a matter of file formats or some such thing; like Tracey, I don't
think that's correct.) And, as in your homeless shelter map example,
perhaps these applications aren't digital. Okay: I certainly agree
that helping people access information relevant to their lives is a
social good. I've written angry letters about reductions in library
hours. But that wasn't open data activism. And I worry that saying
"open data is good, but public data is better" is like saying
"budgetary data is good, but financial literacy workshops are better":
apples, oranges.

Yes, the ultimate goal of open data policies is to help people access
relevant information. Yes, just tossing data online -- particularly in
Canada, where there's no significant institutional/nonprofit presence
around open data -- will largely result in uses that are either
commercially lucrative or at least somewhat self-interested, i.e.
websites that appeal to the Twitter set. And no, publishing a dataset
does not magically absolve government of all further social
responsibility.

But if we allow "open data" to balloon into "help people with
knowledge!", we'll never get anywhere. Open data still has lots of
benefits: for the potential it provides, it comes at an exceedingly
low cost once cultural barriers are overcome. An ideal open data
policy would include outreach and funding so that data gets used by
outsiders in social useful ways. But if we increase the scope of our
common argument beyond that, into the general provision of
information, we confuse people about what open data is. And given that
the largest challenge facing open data is probably marketing and
cultural change, I think being clear about what we mean is pretty
crucial.


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>