[open-government] Introductions

Wed Jun 2 12:43:14 UTC 2010

Hello all

On the topic of public information in the UK I suspect many will have seen this already, but it might be worth linking the new Prime Minister's letter on opening up government data:  http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/05/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data-51204 .  In addition to the specific topic areas covered in the statement, it's interesting to note the commitment to use of open, standardised formats for data.

Regards

Matthew Pearce
Standards Adviser

The National Archives
5th Floor, Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T: 02033345261

Unlocking the potential of public sector information at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/

From: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Brian Gryth
Sent: 29 May 2010 17:28
To: Jonathan Gray
Cc: Content Research; open-government at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [open-government] Introductions

Good discussion thus far.

Here is my two cents:

1) Legal issues will vary largely based on jurisdiction.  For instance, licensing issues are not (or should not) be an issue in the United State because most government data is considered a public record and therefore must be made accessible for inspection (note that does not necessarily equate to being accessible).  Licensing is an issue in the UK and Canada (so I have heard) because the Crown asserts an ownership interested on the data.  Privacy is also a huge issue in the United States (ask any administrator or clerk that has had to deal with Social Security Numbers appearing in records).  I agree with Jonathan's assessment that general guidelines will be helpful.  Any best practices materials, however, must address these legal and policy issues even if a particular issue was not a barrier to implementation.  Such information will be important for comparative policy and legal analysis and will help a jurisdiction amend or create an appropriate legal and policy framework.

2) Financial issues are extremely complicated especially with ever decreasing budgets.  Making government data open does involve a financial commitment.  An important commitment, but a commitment nonetheless.  When governments are having to make critical decisions on providing basic services, committing additional resources to open government data may not be a priority.  The costs can be related to many things.  After all, it costs money to stand up a server to house the data, it costs to host and maintain the server, and IT resources may need to be devoted to converting the data into a usable formats.   In short, open data is not free.

That being said we, the government and communities like this one, need to find ways to fund these open data projects.  In some cases, those funds will come from traditional resources like taxes and in other cases new funding models will need to be explored.  Furthermore, the long term benefits of open government data may lead to spending reductions that will off set the short term investment.  Secondary effects to the economy may also be realized.  However, the data supporting these possibilities is lacking.  The open government communities need to create quantitative data to support the qualitative benefit to society.  Studies like the recent Government Online report by the PEW center in the United States.  See http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx.

3) Organizational change will be needed to effectuate progress in opening government data.  It seems counterintuitive that government entities would resist releasing data that is essentially owned by the public/citizens.  But that is often the reality for many varied and complex reasons.  I personally believe that the government 2.0 movement's long term success will be determine by a change in organizational culture rather than by technology adoption or release of datasets.  Value can only be realized with sustained effort.  As Tim points out in his blog, open government data has little value unless in results in change or societal improvement.  David Eaves talks about the long tail of public policy (see http://eaves.ca/2009/01/22/changecamp-putting-people-and-creativity-back-into-public-policy/) and that open government data helps more people (i.e. the long tail) get involved in policy making.  However, that involvement can only be realized if those people's voices are heard and acted upon.  We must get government to move beyond the perceived or real culture that feedback and comments will be disregard in the order they were received.

I am excited to work with this group to see what we can achieve.  We may have a daunting task.  But as the saying goes, nothing worth doing is easy.

Thanks,
Brian Peltola Gryth
twitter.com/briangryth<http://twitter.com/briangryth>

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org<mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org>> wrote:
Thanks for your email, Gerhard!

2010/5/27 Content Research <contentissimo at chello.at<mailto:contentissimo at chello.at>>:
> 1. I fully agree with your comments that this Soros
> Foundation Study is rather useless or even misguiding.
> I do not even cite this study.
I would love to hear in more detail about what you consider its main
deficiencies to be! E.g. specific things that you think it should have
covered better, identification of misleading claims or factual
inaccuracies...

> 2. I have the strong impression that none of the recent
> authors has participated in any Epsiplus meeting in the
> past years and have read any of their/my studies.
For what its worth, many at the Open Knowledge Foundation have always
been in close contact with ePSIplus network. Also Chris Corbin is on
our advisory board:

 http://okfn.org/about/people#ChristopherCorbin

Also at the OKF (at least as long as I have been here) we *always*
strongly suggest that European open government data advocates contact
their ePSIplus/ePSIplatform representative, and learn more about what
is happening regarding national transposition of the PSI Directive.
E.g. I was speaking to some advocates here in Berlin about this last
week, and some of the things that came up included:

 http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-de/2010-May/000085.html

Regarding your papers, what would you recommend as being most relevant
for this list? In general I would note that there is a pretty
important difference between ignorance and disagreement (Especially if
your presentations are scattered with ad hominems like: "Open data is
driven by freaky guys", "Open data freaks", etc --
<http://www.cciia.com/library/Open-data-policy-evaluated-by-Wagner.pdf>)

> Even the literature in the 60ies was far behind that what
> I currently am pleased to read.
> Open data entails so many complex legal, organisational
> and financial questions where none of the open data
> evangelists have even thought of.
Which evangelists are you thinking of? What issues are you thinking
of? Examples would be very helpful to help us substantiate your
claims, and to help 'evangelists' to become better informed.

Also, while I agree that knowledge of the various complexities is very
important (e.g. whether there are special provisions regarding
government information in national copyright legislation, knowing
about existing licensing and pricing regimes and how these work, etc.)
-- the extent to which these complexities are directly relevant to
open government data advocacy depends on the argument that you are
making. For example, in order to make the case that there are
compelling benefits to opening up official data (perhaps with
reference to interesting or useful web applications such as Gapminder,
TheyWorkForYou or Farm Subsidy) -- do we really need to allude to the
details of US Government Circular No. A-130 in 1996, the UK's 2000
Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy, and so on, *every
time*?

While the OKF is not a campaigning organisation, the Guardian's 'Free
our data' campaign could not really have been called the campaign to
'allow non-personal information that is gathered, processed and stored
by government bodies in pursuance of their public duty, and not
withheld from the public on grounds of national security, to be reused
by the public for any purpose at marginal cost (i.e. zero) where the
overall cost to society does not exceed the benefit of doing so'.

Also 'there are benefits to doing X' does not mean 'there are always
benefits to doing X', or 'we should always do X'. To paraphrase Bob
Dylan, not all open data advocates say that all government data should
be open all of the time. It is only fairly recently that digital
technologies have made it so easy for people to represent, analyse and
deliver official information in new ways - and many open government
data advocates simply seek to articulate and communicate these new
opportunities to public bodies and the public, and to explain how data
should be published in order to encourage innovative reuse.

> I haven't came across any handbook which assists Governments
> to transpose this complex issue step by step in line
> with complex national legislation.
Not sure what you are proposing? Do you think there should be a single
handbook to help with PSI Directive transposition in European member
states with information on complexities (legal, economic,
organizational, ...) in each country? Would this not become a little
unwieldy? ;-)

I do think there is room for a *very basic* open government data
handbook which explains various legal and technical aspects of making
data open from perspective of reuser. E.g. what do we mean by 'raw
data', what do we mean by 'legally open' (and how is this different
from 'available online'), what are the possible benefits (e.g. citizen
driven web applications and services a la Sunlight and mySociety),
what experiences have other countries had with open government data
initiatives (e.g. in Australia, Norway, NZ, Spain, UK, US, ...) and so
on.

All the best,

--
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org<http://blog.okfn.org/>

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg

_______________________________________________
open-government mailing list
open-government at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-government at lists.okfn.org>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message 
or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message 
and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20100602/52474345/attachment.html>