[Open-data-census] open-data-census Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3

Wed Nov 5 11:22:57 UTC 2014

Hi Guys,

No problem at all, the reviewers guide is open to comments and everyone can
read it.

https://docs.google.com/a/okfn.org/document/d/1-m01DLK8fyV1kWQ6qiPwHlZr5lUR2wQXNkQHvvVL7Cs/edit

Comment away! :-)

Mor

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Samuel Goëta <samgoeta at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mor,
>
> could you please share with us the reviewers guide?
>
> One way we can help is to give comments below submissions to help
> reviewers.
>
> It will also help responding to critics of the Index.
>
> Best
>
> Samuel
>
> Le 3 novembre 2014 à 15:26:04, Mor Rubinstein (morchickit at gmail.com) a
> écrit:
>
> HI guys,
>
> Again, thanks for writing.
>
> The only chain that we mentioned in the tutorial is the follows:
> If the data is not available, then the system will mark the rest of the
> questions as 'no'.
>
> There is no other chain in the system, and we were expected each parameter
> to be taken into consideration independently. This is done, among the rest,
> in order to allow to different stakeholders in the open government sphere
> to understand what they need to focus on in order to improve they openness.
>
> I will update the reviewers guide, the site and the tutorial today in
> order to unsure that we will consistency and for the documentation for the
> next Index.
>
> Thank you guys for bringing it up, you are making the index better. :-)
>
> All the best,
> Mor
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Pierre Chrzanowski <
> pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Graeme,
>>
>> I think that Simon was referring to the transnational level criteria for
>> government spending data.
>>
>> @Christian, @Mor would be good to clarify chained / dependent questions.
>> It is true there is no proper guideline on that.
>>
>> All the best
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> On Mon Nov 03 2014 at 2:20:18 PM Graeme Jones <jonesiom at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pierre
>>>
>>> 2/ and 4/  I had a specific email exchange with Christian / Mor to
>>> clarify chained or independent (independent) to ensure consistency ;O)
>>>
>>> 3b/  I think experienced people in the #opendata community typically
>>> side with the lowest common denominator, you are benchmarking to improve so
>>> hopefully not already perfect or nothing left to do!
>>>
>>> 3b/  similarly the issue is often willing volunteers and/or unpaid
>>> hours.  I might have been able to persuade someone else to independently
>>> contribute/review Isle of Man submissions but difficult to justify
>>> unquantified unpaid hours to do the same for other jurisdictions -- last
>>> time I did submissions for about 16 countries and this time I allocated any
>>> spare unpaid hours to briefly review Jersey (ran out of time on Guernsey)
>>> but added some data on other jurisdictions such as UAE, US Virgin Islands,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> people that know what/how to look are thin on the ground in big
>>> countries never mind little countries, hence the importance of mentors
>>> office hours initiatives etc
>>>
>>> 3b/  the push towards a localised UK OGL and financereports.gov.im were
>>> large steps in an offshore country and required *lots* of unpaid hours on
>>> lobbying, slidedecks, favours such as indirect legal opinion from HM
>>> Attorney General, frontline staff training on data cleansing, etc.
>>> sorry, perhaps I have missed something, but the financereports.gov.im
>>> microsite shows govt spending in a timescale at least as good as most of
>>> the best countries and better than most other countries and under a
>>> localised UK OGL -- the OGL in conjunction with independent criteria is
>>> largely why the Isle of Man is higher in the charts
>>>
>>> in fact the end result of a ranking last year was the Isle of Man
>>> Government requested membership of the Open Government Partnership, surely
>>> exactly what anyone in the open government movement should aspire to
>>> achieve?
>>>
>>> also scheduled discussions already include a shift to real time
>>> reporting of the national accounts with data visualisation as a
>>> minister/voter/taxpayer frontend
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Graeme Jones
>>>
>>> On 3 November 2014 12:00, <open-data-census-request at lists.okfn.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:20:20 +0000
>>>> From: Pierre Chrzanowski <pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com>
>>>> To: open-data-census <open-data-census at lists.okfn.org>
>>>> Cc: "okfn-fr-members at lists.okfn.org" <okfn-fr-members at lists.okfn.org>,
>>>>         "Simon Chignard - data.gouv.fr" <simon at data.gouv.fr>
>>>> Subject: [Open-data-census] Serious inconsistencies in the application
>>>>         of      the methodology
>>>>
>>>> Hi list, I am forwarding a message from Simon Chignard who is concerned
>>>> about the lack of quality and consistency in the current submissions.
>>>>
>>>> I think his feedbacks should be carefully taken into account for the
>>>> reviewing process.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>> Ps : text below is a Google translate from email wrote in French to okf
>>>> france members list
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I spotted this weekend which seems to me to be serious inconsistencies
>>>> in
>>>> the application of the methodology of the Open Data Index since 2014. I
>>>> alert you that the question of the reliability of the tool.
>>>>
>>>> 1 / An example: the assessment of open Zipcodes / Postcodes.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the postal code file for Spain, Sweden, Canada and France.
>>>>
>>>> In these four countries, the situation is the same: a more or less
>>>> public
>>>> operator (Correos, Postnummer, Canada Post and La Poste) sells, on
>>>> demand,
>>>> the postal code file.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, these are the scores on the same file:
>>>>
>>>> Zipcode / Canada: 55%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/ca/postcodes
>>>>
>>>> Zipcode / Spain: 45%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/es/postcodes
>>>>
>>>> Zipcode / France: 10%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/fr/postcodes
>>>>
>>>> Zipcode / Sweden: 55%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/se/postcodes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2 / What is at issue
>>>>
>>>> The question posed here is that of chaining or independence criteria.
>>>>
>>>> In France we (collectively) have considered that the criteria chained.
>>>> This
>>>> means that if the data is not available then we put red all other
>>>> criteria.
>>>> However, in all other countries I could see they took each criterion
>>>> separately. They consider that given legally sold and closed may still
>>>> be
>>>> available online, be current, be downloaded in bulk, etc ...
>>>>
>>>> I took the example of Zipcodes but there is the same problem for other
>>>> evaluations, for example here:
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/si/companies
>>>>
>>>> 3 / An assessment that differs between countries
>>>>
>>>> When we look in detail on the evaluation, we also see that the
>>>> application
>>>> of the criteria is more or less strict.
>>>>
>>>> An example: Zipcode / Slovania: 55%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/si/postcodes - the commentary
>>>> states:
>>>> Data is available from Post of Slovenia, purpose is hidden in HTML
>>>> format,
>>>> not available in bulk and Additional skills are needed to extract it.
>>>> Geodetska uprava (Slovenian equivalent of UK Ordnance Survey) resells
>>>> bulk
>>>> data with GIS Additional information.
>>>>
>>>> Just scrap the data then it deserves a score of 55%?
>>>>
>>>> One for the road: Finland / Spending: 90%
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/fi/spending - Certain assets data
>>>> are
>>>> available on Finnish data portal Avoindata.fi. More information from
>>>> Netra
>>>> Will Be ouvert in the future.
>>>>
>>>> There was clearly a problem for the application of the methodology
>>>> described, for evaluating a current and non-availability "in the
>>>> future."
>>>>
>>>> 3 / A reviewer who is also the editor for a country
>>>>
>>>> I looked in detail ratings for the Isle of Man, who gets such good
>>>> scores
>>>> for Government Spending file (100%).
>>>> That evaluation and comment:
>>>> http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/im/spending
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The proposed link is this one: http://financereports.gov.im - it in no
>>>> way
>>>> corresponds to the criteria of the methodology.
>>>>
>>>> The problem seems even more serious for this country - and unlike the
>>>> response Mor was Peter - it is one and the same person who proposed the
>>>> evaluation and validated once.
>>>>
>>>> 4 / Why is that a problem?
>>>>
>>>> It was therefore clearly major inconsistencies in how to apply the
>>>> criteria
>>>> for each country. But if the goal is to produce a ranking of countries -
>>>> not to assess individually), it is a problem. And even a serious
>>>> problem to
>>>> the extent that 10 places to play close to 10%!
>>>>
>>>> The only solution, to me it seems, is that the OKF can ensure that the
>>>> assessment is consistent for all countries .. if it is the credibility
>>>> of
>>>> the ranking is questioned.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> PS: also the issue had already been raised in 2012 for the
>>>> classification
>>>> of W3C
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/2013-February/001153.html
>>>> - so I do not feel that the only problem is discovered now.
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-data-census/attachments/20141103/99ca3879/attachment-0001.html
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-data-census mailing list
>>>> open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> End of open-data-census Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> open-data-census mailing list
>>> open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-data-census mailing list
>> open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141105/c4010fd5/attachment-0001.html>