[Open-data-census] [okfn-discuss] A question about the Open Data census scoring system

Tue Oct 1 13:39:30 BST 2013

Hi All, I already got some feedbacks about the new census results and most
of the time people are quite surprised with the total score and position of
France. I think the fact that France (whose most of datasets are openly
licensed) and China (whose datasets are not open) share almost the same
score is one of the main reasons.

I already expressed my concerns to Christian that the scoring system could
be misleading, or even irrelevant.
And regarding the first feedbacks I got, I must say I am now quite sure it
is misleading ;)

Then, I would suggest to :

1/ remove the actual score which does not reflect openess of datasets in
the countries

and

2/ create a scoring system that really value openess (i.e score 0 if
dataset not open)

That being said, I am also wondering if it would not be better not have a
score at all ...

What do you think ?

I found a discussion on the scoring calculation methodology and how it has
evolved here https://github.com/okfn/opendatacensus/issues/33?source=cc

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Christian Villum <
christian.villum at okfn.org> wrote:

> Dear Tatyana,
>
> Thank you for offering to help, we will definitely be explaining the
> methodology on the site as part of the coming updates.
> We'll also look into the EXMO tool, thanks for the tip.
>
> Let's stay in touch!
>
> -Christian
>
> --
>
> Christian Villum
>
> Community Manager, Open Government Data + Local Groups Network
> skype: christianvillum  |  @villum <http://www.twitter.com/villum>
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
> *Empowering through Open Knowledge
> *http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |
> Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>
>
> *Have you registered for OKCon 2013 <http://okcon.org/>?*
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Tatyana Tolsteneva <
> tatyanatolsteneva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Rufus,
>>
>> thanks a lot for your respond.
>> I would like suggest to join to the idea of developing and publishing
>> full methodology of the Census.
>> We in the Freedom of Information Foundation (Russia) have already done
>> tis job for our monitoring (please see our methodology on our web-site in
>> English http://www.svobodainfo.org/en/node/1014).
>> We would be happy to provide translation support and translate the Census
>> methodology in Russian.
>>
>> Also we would be pleasant to offer you our ICT monitoring tool - EXMO
>> system, specially developed for government web-sites monitoring. Please
>> find the article about EXMO work here (in English)
>> http://www.svobodainfo.org/en/node/2162
>> Just note, that unique quantity of EXMO is it's interaction part, which
>> allows not only measure government openness level, but also improve it via
>> internet communication with officials.
>>
>>  Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Tatyana Tolsteneva
>> Development manager
>> tatyana.tolsteneva at svobodainfo.org
>>
>> Freedom of Information Foundation
>> (formerly known as Institute for Information Freedom Development)
>> P.O. Box 527, St.-Petersburg, 192007, Russia
>> Phone:  +7 812 766-03-66
>> Fax: +7 812 766-52-61
>> Email: info at svobodainfo.org <info at svobodainfo.org>
>> www.svobodainfo.org
>>
>>
>> 01.08.2013, в 14:06, Rufus Pollock написал(а):
>>
>> On 1 August 2013 10:24, Tatyana Tolsteneva <tatyanatolsteneva at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Rufus,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for your explanation, i have already found it here
>>> https://github.com/okfn/opendatacensus/issues/33.
>>> Please take my apologies for "OKNF", it was just a misprint.
>>>
>>
>> No worries :-) (Just making sure not a confusion as opposed to typo!)
>>
>>
>>> Here in Russia the Census it considered to be most authoritative
>>> comparative study of open data around the world. And here we really feel
>>> some lack of official information about the Census methodology.
>>> It seems, this problem could be solved by official publication of the
>>> methodology on the Census website.
>>> Could it be possible? What do you think about the methodology
>>> publication?
>>>
>>
>> Yes this is a very good idea and we'll get moving on this right away. Any
>> suggestions for specific things to include or language are very welcome!
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>> Tatyana Tolsteneva
>>> Development manager
>>> tatyana.tolsteneva at svobodainfo.org
>>>
>>> Freedom of Information Foundation
>>> (formerly known as Institute for Information Freedom Development)
>>> P.O. Box 527, St.-Petersburg, 192007, Russia
>>> Phone:  +7 812 766-03-66
>>> Fax: +7 812 766-52-61
>>> Email: info at svobodainfo.org <info at svobodainfo.org>
>>> www.svobodainfo.org
>>>
>>> 31.07.2013, в 22:28, Rufus Pollock написал(а):
>>>
>>> [changing mailing list from okfn-discuss to open-data-census]
>>>
>>> On 23 July 2013 12:06, Tatyana Tolsteneva <tatyanatolsteneva at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>> my name is Tatyana and i'm a development manager of the Freedom of
>>>> Information Foundation - Russian FOI-advocasy NGO based in St. Petersburg.
>>>> I'm interested in the OKNF Open Data Census scoring system because i
>>>> can't catch it's idea of it http://census.okfn.org/G8/
>>>>
>>>
>>> OKFN (Open Knowledge Foundation (Network))
>>>
>>>
>>>> At first i had a hypothesis, that each "yes" costs 1 poin and points
>>>> just should to be summarized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's almost the case but not quite: whether data is up to date does
>>> not count towards the total score.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This idea has been perfect, if maximum for all questions would have
>>>> been 7.
>>>> But we have 6 as maximum.
>>>> So my question is about "data existence" column
>>>>
>>> IN case all  "yes" should cost 1 points, it should be 7 as maximum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Form the table http://census.okfn.org/G8/ i can see that some
>>>> times "yes" per "data existence" is taken into the account.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It should be always taken into account.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fo example,  Transport timetable is Russia, Government spending is
>>>> France and in Italy.
>>>> But in the majority of cases YES per "data existence" is not included
>>>> into the account. For example Zip-codes Russia
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is included there - it's up to date that is not included.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And speaking about Russian case, company register for Russia  has 2/6
>>>> and Transport timetable has 2/6, but Company register is up to date
>>>> and Transport timetable is not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would you be so kind to explain this scoring and situation with points
>>>> for "data existence" and i woul be specially glad for explaining in the
>>>> context of the Russian score.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hope the above clarifies things. Also thanks for asking as your
>>> questions will encourage us to put up further documentation on the website!
>>>
>>> Rufus
>>>  *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *
>> Rufus Pollock
>> Founder and Executive Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>|
>> Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Open-data-census mailing list
>> Open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Open-data-census mailing list
> Open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>
>

-- 
*Pierre Chrzanowski*
*Open Knowledge Foundation France*

Mail: pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com
Mobile: +33 (0)7 855 71 292 | Skype: pierre.chrzanowski | Twitter:
@piezanowski <https://twitter.com/piezanowski>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-data-census/attachments/20131001/40a4e887/attachment-0001.htm>