[okfn-coord] 4IP

[Jonathan Gray]

Hi Becky!

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is WDMMG "100% native to digital networks, with its centre of gravity
> in participation or collaboration?". As Jonathan has pointed out, we
> can make the data sets we're compiling available for reuse, and even
> provide APIs or other such jazzy stuff so others can interpret them
> visually. But this is a by-product of the project, and not the
> project's "centre of gravity". This may prejudice 4IP against us from
> the outset. Please can others weigh in on how we might orient WDMMG
> towards greater off-the-street participation at its core? Is this even
> doable?

Could one frame this in terms of WDMMG being a much needed part of the
'ecosystem' of applications and services building on UK PSI? As the
code will be open source, and the material is open - anyone will be
able to integrate it with other work, or build on it. Hence in a
technical sense it can be re-used by developers.

Also, more generally, I would hope that users could generate a
visualisation for a particular purpose (e.g. how does financing of
budget category A in year X compare with budget catefory B in year Y -
or how much does person in income bracket A in place K spend on budget
category X compared with person in bracket B in place L), and share
this with only a URL - which could be embedded anywhere.

I think this sort of thing may make sense as a pitch - even though
there are probably going to be issues related to data availability,
quality and coverage. What do you think?

> -Even if we get no money from Show Us...at the Cabinet Office, do we
> have a committment from them that they will release the required data
> sets?

I believe they are broadly committed to helping us source data, and
publishing new data if we need it.

> -Has any costing been done for this project already that I can look at?

Hmm.. I don't think we ever got to the stage where detailed costing was needed.

> On the question of getting Liz and Dave on the visualisation side, I'm
> ambivolent until I understand how we can get 4IP to accept this
> project as a participation-grounded endeavour. Although this is not to
> say that I do not love their work (I do!) and would not welcome the
> opportunity to collaborate with them (I would!) I fear that if we
> approach 4IP with design experts in mind and without a coherent story
> about how participation from all-comers is essential to add value to
> the project, we may give the impression that we are a closed group of
> creatives who want to be "commissioned" by Channel 4.

Good point about commissioning - though I'm inclined to think that if
we can make the point about participation very clear, we could allude
to Iconomical so they've got something interesting to look at.
Otherwise I'm worried that it might look as though we've got more
ideas/enthusiasm, than experience and concrete/compelling plans for
delivery. What do you think?

Perhaps we could spend a bit of time on this in person - if I can get
to Cambridge at some point?

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org