formats to their citizens. We believe this is necessary to allow
(that,s just a reverse of the two sentences & some editing). some other
Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
> i incorporated the new changes -
http://www.civicaccess.ca/wiki/About>
> see very brief comments below
>
>
> Hugh McGuire wrote:
>
>>sorry late deadlines today, so comments below might seem a bit blunt, I
>>don't mean to be!
>>
>>
>>
>>> 1. I found this -
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1997, and i
>>> have to say that I like seeing the full name even if it long - it
>>> is very descriptive. I think we can use the long name in this way
>>> - Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and Data
>>> (AccèsCivique/CivicAccess for short!). if you google CivicAccess
>>> all kinds of stuff comes up!
>>>
>>>
>>I think the name is too long (esp with french/english). no one will
>>remember "citizens for open acccess to civic information and data" (I
>>can't & I'm a founding member! I can't even remember the acronym is it
>>coacid? coaicd?). if you put into google:
>>citizens+open+access+civic+information+data you get 5,940,000 results.
>>
>>civicaccess.ca is easy to remember and is what the project is about. i
>>think shorter is better. you don't have to google civicaccess if you can
>>remember civicaccess.ca.
>>
>>
> see the compromise.
>
>>
>>
>>> 2. It is important to keep the word - information - along with the
>>> word - data - , as sometimes data come in nicely & not so nicely
>>> packaged formats - web pages, reports, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not sure I understand the distinction. is it that data is ugly &
>>info is clean? my understanding of the project is: give us the data &
>>we'll make it clean. don,t worry about spending tax money on cleaning it
>>(thnat would be nice, but)... we'll clean it if we have to. just give it
>>to us. seems to me data does the job - though maybe it,s a scary word
>>for some. information is defn easier. not sure on this one.
>>
>>
> data - is a scarry 4 letter word in some communities so information is
> better. Originally the including the word data was considered troublesome!
>
>>
>>
>>> 3. Terms such as - freely available & should be free - are
>>> problematic since at the moment data and information are freely
>>> available and are free - as in freedom or foi - but they are not
>>> for free, terms such as - at no cost, gratis, etc. are more
>>> precise.
>>>
>>>
>>yes. maybe "at no cost" is better.
>>
>>
> see change
>
>>
>>
>>> 4. Data - are plural.
>>>
>>>
>>ok.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 5. The geographer in me is obsessed with scale - so when i refer to
>>> governments i use the term levels, to ensure that counties and
>>> feds are included - as sometimes it is harder to get data and
>>> information from the smallest unit of gov or the one closest to
>>> you as a citizen (e.g. where are the hazardous waste sites in my
>>> city - cities are reluctant to publish these for insurance claim
>>> issues).
>>>
>>>
>>again, brevity. landing page should be as quick & clear as possible.
>>govt levels is an important issue that should be clarified in a bigger
>>document, but as a citizen/participant I am agreeing with: governemnt
>>should make data available. this should imply municipal, prov, fed. etc.
>>
>> 6. in the rubric of - gov, info highway, economics, life the universe
>>
>>
>>> and everything - it is important to keep the term - information
>>> society - ironically canada markets itself as such and it is
>>> important to push walking the talk and using terms in the current
>>> national discourse taglines
>>>
>>>
>>ok. but it's an imprecise & throw-away term, but may help explain what
>>we're going on about to average joes. but do people really still use the
>>term? I haven't heard it since 1998 ;)
>>
>>
> oh well!
>
>>
>>
>>> 7. the terms - reliable, accurate, authentic and timely - are
>>> important, scientists want to work with good quality data not
>>> outdated poorly collected cheap data, currently, there are some
>>> scientific data, maps, remote sensing images, available for free
>>> in all the ways we want them to be, but alas, they are old (e.g.
>>> air quality data for 1992 not today!) or are not accompanied by
>>> metadata that explain the fit for use and the quality of the
>>> data. Also, these terms are important in the world of archives,
>>> currently there is discussion in canada on developing a data
>>> archive and there is ongoing research to incorporate these
>>> concepts - see the InterPares Project -
>>>
http://interpares.org/ip2/ip2_domain2.cfm>>>
>>>
>>Once again, this should be clarified in main docs, but I don't think the
>>landing page should deal with such important issues. they are secondary
>>to a commitment on the part of the govt to provide the data. this should
>>imply good data.
>>
>>
>>
> see change
>
>>> 8. What to do with this sentence? - " Access to civic data is impeded
>>> by cost recovery, IP, poor or unsuitable formatting, a lack of
>>> discovery strategies, security and confidentiality. " These are
>>> the biggies that are keeping data out of the hands of citizens, if
>>> you chat with folks, you will soon find out that they are mostly
>>> unaware of these concepts. So i want them there somehow. Can you
>>> help make that work hugh or anyone else? See what I did.
>>>
>>>
>>does not belong in objectives...maybe there needs to be a section: "why
>>are we fighting and what are we fighting against." but I would suggest
>>that should be elsewhere. thoughts?
>>
>>
> kay - policy page - see mod
>
>>
>>
>>> 9. Keeping the word taxation is important - as once people realize
>>> they have already paid for the stuff, they get awfully incensed
>>> when they have to pay for them again. Currently federal
>>> departments purchase data from statcan and provinces - which in
>>> effect means we pay for the same data 4 time! a rather inefficient
>>> use of tax dollars!
>>>
>>>
>>I think it was in there, but I agree fully. It's our data & we paid for
>>it! this to me is the most compelling logical argument. who are you
>>(governments) to be charging me for stuff I've paid for. That's a very
>>powerful image.
>>
>>
> done
>
>>
>>
>>> 10. Over sensitivity to confidentiality - need advice here, i am a
>>> firm believer in confidentiality, however oversensitivity to this
>>> concept is problematic, for example, aggregated health data is not
>>> being released, think sars and avian flu and ebola outbreaks as
>>> examples. i do not want coacid to sound like we do not support
>>> confidentiality but want highlight that institutions are
>>> withholding critical aggregated information & data and using
>>> confidentiality as an excuse.
>>>
>>>
>>yes must be careful here. it's a very important issue on both ends. the
>>important point is that we don't want info about individuals.
>>
>>
> for the policy page
>
>>
>>
>>> 11. Can you look at the 5th bullet - i would like to include your
>>> point a) innovative solutions and also b) creatively plan - cuz
>>> new interesting and creative proposals are also important! It is
>>> also in the spirit of what was there - re-visioning which i
>>> thought was really nice.
>>>
>>>
>>the problem i have with reenvisioning is that it means so many different
>>things to different people. why would I (a ottawa beaurocrat, minister,
>>or media person) support a big project to reenvision society? what does
>>it mean? what,s in it for me? what's in it for the country?
>>
>>
> see page
> cheers
> t
> ps-good luck with the deadline!
>
>>hugh.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Tracey
>>>ps-can still be tweaked i think.
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Lenczner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>i think it's great! thanks hugh
>>>>
>>>>On 3/28/06, Hugh McGuire <
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Here is my proposal for the intro text - might as well be on the front
>>>>>page (?), but it's modified from the "about" on the wiki. For the
>>>>>landing page, it would need more info. for consideration:
>>>>>****
>>>>>
>>>>>Accès Civique/Civic Access (ACCA) believes that government-collected
>>>>>civic data should be free for citizens to use, and available in open
>>>>>formats.
>>>>>
>>>>>Our Objectives:
>>>>>1. to encourage governments to make civic data free and available in
>>>>>open formats
>>>>>2. to encourage development of citizen projects using civic data
>>>>>
>>>>>Making civic data freely available to citizens is important because:
>>>>>
>>>>>*citizen participation in decision-making is fundamental to democracy
>>>>>*the best decisions are made by informed citizens
>>>>>*access to civic data is fundamental to keeping citizens informed
>>>>>*civic data is gathered on behalf of citizens; it should be freely
>>>>>available for them to use in constructive ways
>>>>>*citizen projects using civic data will generate innovative solutions to
>>>>>problems
>>>>>*this is what a democracy looks like!
>>>>>
>>>>>The role of this wiki is to complement [WWW] civicaccess-discuss to
>>>>>create a community of people across Canada who share these beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stephane Guidoin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with both remarks :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The sentenses on the splash screen could be more precise about our goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The more it goes, the more we use CivicAccess instead of COACID. COACID gives
>>>>>>a clearer definition but usually people don't really notice the signification
>>>>>>of words in such names/acronyms. So we may simply remove COACID and remain with
>>>>>>CivicAccess. Is it necessary to keep an acronym like CAAC ? I don't think. We
>>>>>>could just use CivicAccess + the little motto Hugh sent "It's our data. Let us
>>>>>>use it." (for example)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Selon Hugh McGuire <
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>another suggestion:
>>>>>>>why not change the name of the organization from:
>>>>>>>*Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and Data (COACID)/
>>>>>>>Citoyen-ne-s pour l'Accès Libre à l'Information et aux Données Civiques
>>>>>>>(CALIDC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to:
>>>>>>>*Civic Access/Accès citoyen (CAAC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>
[hidden email] <mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>>
[hidden email] <mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
>>>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>
[hidden email] <mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
>>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>
[hidden email] <mailto:
[hidden email]>
>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>
[hidden email] <mailto:
[hidden email]>
>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca