[open-government] Defining Open Government Data?

Tue Oct 19 17:53:17 UTC 2010

And maybe things like:

every idiot/crappy gov website is polite enough to point to an Adobe Reader
download link to be able to open the PDF-muck they throw on-line. Maybe part
of the 'socially open' definition stuff should be pointing to possible
useful tools for re-use (which data.gov.uk is moving towards, btw), such as
Gridworks or viz tools that are emerging.

But that's maybe asking too much already.
-------------------------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

http://zylstra.org/blog
-------------------------------------------

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Ton Zijlstra <ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree with keeping things simple.
> However, a minimalistic way of adding some 'social open' notions could be
> enough for now:
>
>    - findability (such as datasets described in a way that my average self
>    can find it, without learning Dept X particular lingo)
>    - such as having a contactperson and e-mail address mentioned with a
>    dataset e.g.,
>    - a way of giving feedback on data sets etc,
>    - showing contextual provenance other than 'Dept X published this' and
>    more along the lines: this was collected for task x by body y, and used in z
>    way, and things like when it will be next updated.
>
>
> none of those are tech-aspects or legal aspects, but important nonetheless
> to render a data set useful.
> the whole 'stay in touch with all your stakeholders' 'community building'
> 'being a platform for re-users' can be part of the natural growth path on
> top of the minimalistic definitions.
>
> >Also are we saying that governments should do social stuff on PSB
> >websites
>
> My answer would be yes. It's called interacting with citizens, and a
> primary ingredient of having a public sphere at all. I'd say 'doing social
> stuff' is a core task of gov :)
>
> Also indications are pretty strong that it's the 'socially open' aspects
> that ultimately drive the adoption of re-use. As well as it seems the way to
> take away unarticulated fears of data holders.
>
> These data sets become objects of sociality, creating and sustaining
> conversations with and around gov. To not make sure there's a conduit for
> that interaction is setting it up to fail. As the example of opening
> landownership data in Bangladesh shows us.
>
> All in all, I think 'social stuff' is key.
> It may very well be that part of the resulting interaction need not be
> connected to a singular dataset but rather to a corpus of datasets, such as
> a data catalogue.
>
> Maybe my point is that if you posit this as a technology or legal driven
> thing only, gov's will miss why it's important and that will make the open
> definition become self-defeating to a certain extent.
>
> best,
> Ton
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> Yes agree this is very important, and we wrote about aspects of this
>> in several recent reports [1].
>>
>> However, I strongly feel that for present purposes the definition
>> should be (i) *very very* simple (as easy as possible to determine
>> compliance) and (ii) unambiguous to evaluate. How would one determine
>> if something is socially open? Would it be clear cut in every case?
>> Also thinking of free/open source software definitions do we perhaps
>> want to separate between subject matter (data) and surrounding
>> processes (how it is published, social openness) for purposes of a
>> definition, even though both are important?
>>
>> Also are we saying that governments should do social stuff on PSB
>> websites, or do also want to enable and encourage innovation from
>> outside government? A major point in Tom Steinberg/Ed Mayo's excellent
>> Power of Information report [2].
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> [1] cf. e.g. http://writetoreply.org/beyondaccess/4-1-discoverability/
>> and http://www.unlockingaid.info/3/
>> [2] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/poi/power-of-information-review.pdf
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Ton Zijlstra <ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Jonathan,
>> > Maybe we can add a component 'socially open' as well? Just this week I
>> saw
>> > the results of a study about municipal websites in the Netherlands, that
>> had
>> > as a result that while information and service were nominally available
>> as
>> > the law dictates, it was all very well hidden deep in websites to the
>> point
>> > of uselessness. No 'social openness' in short, as in findable, connected
>> to
>> > contexts etc., and absence of dialogue with re-users, feedback
>> possibilities
>> > for re-users towards PSB's etc.
>> > Those three components, legally open, technically open, socially open
>> were
>> > also the components that floated to the foreground while we were writing
>> on
>> > the Open Data Manual in Berlin earlier this month.
>> > best,
>> > Ton
>> > -------------------------------------------
>> > Interdependent Thoughts
>> > Ton Zijlstra
>> >
>> > ton at tonzijlstra.eu
>> > +31-6-34489360
>> >
>> > http://zylstra.org/blog
>> > -------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We'd like to start a process to encourage key stakeholders in the
>> >> (rapidly growing!) world of open government data to have some
>> >> consensus on what 'open government data' means. This would be a 'bare
>> >> minimum' that would need to be complied with in order to be called
>> >> OGD, not a wish list in an ideal world in perfect conditions.
>> >>
>> >> We already have several sets of principles [1], but many of these are
>> >> quite jurisdiction specific -- e.g. according to 8 principles the
>> >> Australian, New Zealand and UK governments don't have any open
>> >> government data as it isn't 'license free', and the UK principles are
>> >> clearly only intended for the UK (and it would be good not to have a
>> >> different set of standards for each country!).
>> >>
>> >> We'd like something *really* simple that we can start to try to build
>> >> consensus around. Hence I'd like to start discussion around a basic
>> >> definition/standard that we can all start to encourage the adoption
>> >> of, to distinguish open government data from e.g. a bunch of PDFs
>> >> published on a website with no information about reuse, or an API with
>> >> restrictive terms of use.
>> >>
>> >> I envisage this as having two key components:
>> >>
>> >>  (i) legally open (as in opendefinition.org)
>> >>  (ii) technically open (i.e. machine readable, available to download in
>> >> bulk)
>> >>
>> >> (i) would be to make sure that we don't start calling stuff 'open
>> >> government data' which:
>> >>
>> >>  * doesn't explicitly let the public reuse it for any purpose
>> >> (whether as a result of national copyright law, or departmental
>> >> policy)
>> >>  * doesn't permit derivative works
>> >>  * doesn't permit commercial reuse
>> >>
>> >> (ii) would be to make sure that material is not *only*:
>> >>
>> >>  * available via an API
>> >>  * available in non-machine readable formats, where machine readable
>> >> copies exist
>> >>
>> >> I've started a draft along these lines at:
>> >>
>> >>  http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/definition
>> >>
>> >> Any input/comments would be very much appreciated! We'd ideally like
>> >> something ready at or just before Open Government Data Camp in London!
>> >>
>> >>  http://opengovernmentdata.org/camp2010/
>> >>
>> >> All the best,
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/
>> >> http://resource.org/8_principles.html
>> >> http://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/opendataciviccapital.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/28/new-uk-transparency-board-and-public-data-principles/
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jonathan Gray
>> >>
>> >> Community Coordinator
>> >> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> >> http://blog.okfn.org
>> >>
>> >> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>> >> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> open-government mailing list
>> >> open-government at lists.okfn.org
>> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Gray
>>
>> Community Coordinator
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> http://blog.okfn.org
>>
>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101019/1f3f03fc/attachment-0001.html>