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

Mon Nov 3 19:45:18 UTC 2014

The CD ROM example is a really nice one - we should have that written up as
an example in a methodology webpage "nerdy appendix" or something. I think
a lot of the items in this thread show how we can make things clearer for
folks around corner cases, and little real world examples are great for
that.

Laura

On 3 November 2014 16:30, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:

> On 3 November 2014 16:11, Pierre Chrzanowski <pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Sorry to keep going on but I actually thought there were some evident
>> chains such as : bulk or format are null if data is not publicly available
>> online. Otherwise it means that one has to be able to have access to the
>> unavailable data to confirm evidences.
>>
>
> These are excellent points PIerre and we thought quite a bit about the
> implication chains last year (and have tried to build some into the survey
> logic).
>
> On the bulk the logic was this: in the UK you used to be able to get the
> Companies Register in bulk on CDs but not online. (So this is an example of
> bulk being true but online being false).
>
> Similarly, for format it is again the case that stuff coudl be available
> in a specific format but not publicly online.
>
>
>> For instance, I am being told that spending government data in France
>> exist in reusable format and in bulk. But I cannot access the data so why
>> should I believe this ? Should I go to the Ministry ?
>>
>
> I would say that is definitely a stretch: if data is not available to
> anyone then it would be impossible to know if bulk so i would mark this as
> no or unsure in this case. Similarly, on reusable. However, if e.g. the
> Ministry made the data available to researchers on CD-ROMs you would be
> able to answer this even if not publicly available.
>
> Rufus
>
>
>> Then, there are actually some questions that consider public availability
>> implicitly in their definition such as for bulk [1]. Two questions are
>> chained then.
>>
>> I hope that we will be able to sort that out before we publish anything.
>> Otherwise, I know there are some people ready to fire :)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> [1] Data is available in bulk if the whole dataset can be downloaded or
>> accessed easily. Conversely it is considered non-bulk if the citizens are
>> limited to just getting parts of the dataset (for example, if restricted to
>> querying a web form and retrieving a few results at a time from a very
>> large database).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon Nov 03 2014 at 3:25:59 PM Mor Rubinstein <morchickit at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
> how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> |
> @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
> company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-data-census mailing list
> open-data-census at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-data-census
>
>

-- 

*Dr Laura JamesCEO  *

*skype: laura.james  |  *@LaurieJ <http://twitter.com/LaurieJ>

*Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>    -    A world where knowledge creates
power for the many, not the fewhttp://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |
 @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>
<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>Open Knowledge Community Stories
| http://okfncommunity.tumblr.com/ <http://okfncommunity.tumblr.com/> | see
how people are changing the worldThe Open Knowledge Foundation is a
not-for-profit organisation.  It is incorporated in England & Wales as a
company limited by guarantee, with company number 05133759.  VAT
Registration № GB 984404989. Registered office address: Open Knowledge
Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS,
UK.  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-data-census/attachments/20141103/71a3d9d7/attachment-0001.html>