[OpenSpending] Follow-up to transaction standard call

Mon Oct 22 14:36:39 UTC 2012

Thanks for the clarifications! I just have a few more anecdotes to share.

>> Cost overruns are easy to see even at a high-level. Governments regularly spend more than they budget. There's certainly interest in determining where those cost overruns are at a lower-level, but I don't see the need to go to the lowest level. Same for non-performance.
> 
> I am assuming that the lowest level is easier to obtain than a more processed form. Maybe that's not true?

Reporting differs between institutions. In Canada, for example, one institution may report its planned and actual spending per program activity. Others may not provide that much detail. In many jurisdictions, reporting is standardized, and if the standard requires a certain level of precision, then that processed form would certainly be easier to obtain.

>>> I can see that contract-level data would also add lots of new useful information about the purpose of the transactions. I don't think either of transaction-level data and contract-level data really replaces the other.
>>> 
>>> Bulk of data is not in itself an insurmountable problem. We have computers and dedicated people. Given ledger-level transaction data the task of reducing it is manageable, provided the books balance. However, if you get a dumbed-down version of the data that has been processed and reduced and summarised so that it no longer balances, then you don't really have anything at all.
>> 
>> Insurmountability is a very low bar :) I would not underestimate the time it takes to properly model an accounting system, so that it's possible to ask of it the sorts of questions that are interesting.
>> 
>> Anyway, I'm not against transparency at the transaction level. I'm just curious to figure out if the common use cases and requirements can be satisfied without going that far, because I think going for the transaction level will be a lot harder, both in terms of getting the data and in terms of using it.
> 
> Well then, maybe it's a question of finding the appropriate ambition! Quick fix or long-term solution? Easy for me to say when I am not the one doing the work, I suppose.

I think it's possible to incrementally build a long-term solution. Today's "quick fix" could inform, or be a part of, tomorrow's longer-term solution.