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] [hidden email] [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] [hidden email] [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] [hidden email] [hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email] [hidden email] [hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email] [hidden email] [hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email] [hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email] [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