[Open-data-census] open government data or open data

[Mor Rubinstein]

Hi Maxim,

Thanks for the suggestions. I will add them to the methodology section.
Please notice that the methodology section is new, and was not existed last
year, so it is (still) a work in progress. I believe we say the word
government a lot in the text, but I dont mind to edit this again.

Also, I believe that because this survey is done and measured by civil
society, it reflect how other stakeholders see government openness, and not
exactly how government are open (although most of the time we are really
the same). Its a really fine definition, but it helps to explain to
government the meaning of the survey - more of a dialogue tool than only a
bench mark.

Hope it makes stuff clear,

Mor

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Maxim Dubinin <sim at gis-lab.info> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I  have  raised  a  couple  of  issues  off-list  and want to continue
> clarifying  them in hope to make future versions of ODI more clear. I
> realize
> they  might  be  a  little  bit  too late, I'm sorry in advance that I
> didn't look carefully and didn't brought them before ODI assessment was
> over.
>
> I'm going to  separate  them  into  two emails. One with general issue
> and one with geodata examples.
>
> General issue  -  Is  ODI  government open data review or any open data
> review?  Nowhere  at http://index.okfn.org/methodology/ it is  clearly
> states  either.  It seems to mention "government data landscape",  but
>  at  the same time "citizen perspective" (meaning any data?).
>
> Suggested answer to this is - consult the FAQ: http://index.okfn.org/faq/
>
> I did and I still don't see it addressed as clear as it could be. Yes, it
> does mention
> that  "in  2013,  the first edition of the Index reviewed the state of
> open government  data in 70 countries". But that:
> a) does not necessarily imply that it is still the same in 2014.
> b) too late in the text
> c) preceded  but  the  list  of the datasets, where some of them are
> having  "Government"  before  the  data  set name and some don't which
> might add to the confusion.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> 1.  Add  some clarifications to methodology (this is where some people
> tend to look first).
>
> 2. Make gov data more explicit right in the beginning sentence. Something
> like (my CAPS):  "The  Global  Open  Data  Index  is a project that
> measures and
> benchmarks  the  openness  of GOVERNMENT data around the world, and then
> presents
> this information in a way that is easy to understand and use."
>
> These  suggestion are not just neat-picking, they are
> based  on  some  criticism from outside people, they did stumble on
> that. Being a reviewer myself, it felt natural to assess government data,
> but
> I'll  show  an  example in the next email, that it seems like at least
> few reviewers were confused.
>
> ---------
> Maxim Dubinin
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-data-census mailing list
> open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-data-census/attachments/20141216/c347dcbd/attachment.html>