Comments on: Data.gov and lessons from the open-source world http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/ Design by Ben Crothers of Catch Media Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14883 Madeleine Kingston Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:23:50 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14883 I felt so sure the blog above would be moderated, given my recent experiences of experimenting with openness, trust and moderation expectations in one blog forum or another. Don't let me down. My standards are high. I walk away from negative relationships - always. As mentioned before, I have had some negative experiences lately of blogging. Does this phase me? No. What are relationships without trust and tolerance of alternative viewpoints? If it is not there, move on. Make word count and moderation policies clear from the outset. Don't waste the time of committed stakeholders. Does it matter that I am forming relationships with "Faceless Bureaucrats." No. (stand up designer of the graphic of that article - my feedback is really positive - just love it). Good to know that one can name pseudonyms, speak from the heart, make spelling mistakes, talk about the underlying meaning and purpose of Gov 2 (as opposed to Web2 - as in timely information provision in the moment). Is Gov2 up to a few mistakes? Is it up to being honest. Engaging with stakeholders in a meaningful way for the long haul? If so, I am will still be around. If not, I will take the view that it was fun whilst it lasted, and move on to greener pastures. Gov 2 Taskforce if you are there, and notwithstanding my half-teasing comments about your Faceless Persona (all bets off if you misinterpret this remark) Hear me say this - speak up, let us know where things are at and whether the identified distinction between Web2 and Gov2 will be addressed in the interests of the improved governance and policy decisions that impact on the fundamentals of sustainability in every possible sphere. Look for timely identification of problems in these arenas before they become entrenched. Seek application of layered participation. Identify your target market, but don't neglect other more incidental and short-term engagement prospects. I may joke, play innocent' use escapist jargon; make obsure literary references; flatter; cajole; gesticulate; seek guidance with technical gaps in both accessing and providing data. Bottom line: I am seeking a reciprocal and sustained dialogue - and adoption of improved national governance and policy. I am not concerned about how this achieved, or what the budgetary constraints are; or what the delays may be. I just want to see this goal achieved. Adam Smith - I bow to you as a legend. But times move on. I will never forget you. Steve McShane and Tony Travaglione - your Organizational Behaviour on the Pacfic Rim was and is an inspiration to me. Splendidly presented. But it is three years since it was published. We need an update. Already Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been challenged - by McShane and Travaglione (2007)newcomers to the scene of Organizational Behaviour (on the Pacific Rim) 2007. What else should be questioned in terms of assessing human needs and expectations? It would be too smug to cite the favourite theorists of the past. Move with the times. Theorize in the here and now. Be prepared to reassess, re-evaluate, evaluate again - leave complacency behind. There is no room for it. Don't be afraid to seek professional evaluative advice. This means before not after the event. Evaluation is a process not an assessment of what has already occurred I am looking for implementation of the deeper embedded message behind engagement and information exchange. I will be patient but also realistic - and I will be looking for deliverable and measurable outcomes that are timely and accountable. I am not in the right demographic category for your target market at all if you are looking for superficial "in-the-moment" information provision. I need and expect more - much more. Can you deliver it? Don't box me or anyone else in your target audience. Each of us is unique. Acknowledge that, respect it and allow for it. Behavioural economics has for decades been under-evaluated and misunderstood, besides being an inexact science. That is why we cannot get assessments of consumer behaviour and market performance correctly assessed. Have a look, for instance as the history of poorly assessed competitive markets in the energy erena, as one example of low-involvement commodity markets for which "rapid churn" has been mistaken for competition in action. Go back four decades and more. Learn from the lesson of recurrent history. In 1979 Peter Applegarth, then Executive Member of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said: “The Government’s actions are motivated by fear. Fear that citizens will begin to tell the Government what the law should be, instead of the Government telling the citizens what the law.” “All power is a trust handed to Government by the people. Any other power is usurpation.” Now in the year 2008, Government initiatives are seeking to receive input from stakeholders adversely affected by regulations as evidenced by the philosophies embraced by the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry in Australia’s Consumer Policy Framework. There is a dearth of consumer input into enquiries such as this. There are cautions about the tactical shift by industry groups, home and abroad and pertinent questions as to whether such a shift is motivated by a confluence of self-interest. In the area of goods, it is easy to say that growing competition from inexpensive imports that do not meet voluntary standards and a desire to head off liability lawsuits and pre-empt tough state laws or legal actions that may have resulted from a laissez-faire response to policies in place. One interesting US example is the case of the Altria group, owner of the cigarette manufacturing firm Phillip Morris. The unexpected proposal was made by that group to allow the F.D.A. to regulate the manufacture and marketing of tobacco products. Such legislation is pending in the US. Critics are saying that this is a bid by Phillip Morris to weaken opposition to cigarettes by working with the government, and could help the company maintain its market share. Reducing regulatory burden is a long-time goal of the Productivity Commission in Australia as well as of other bodies. It is commendable if the outcomes for all concerned are equitable. The energy industry in Australia appears to be super-enthusiastic about the changes proposed putting forward well-structured and plausible arguments in the interest of least burdensome regulatory control. What will be the consequences for consumers? Rosario Palmieri, a regulatory lobbyist at the US National Association of Manufacturers, a body that has often opposed government regulations, is reported as observing the change with equanimity. The Director of Regulatory Policy OMB Watch (Office of Management and Budget) of the Washington group that tracks regulatory actions has never seen so many industries joining the push for regulation. He poses a pertinent question: will this achieve a real increase in standards and public protections or simply serve corporate interests? Of the US situation Sarah Klein, a lawyer at the Centre for Science in the Public Interest is seeking to examine the problems created by a failed voluntary system in the grocery store and produce grower segment. Ms Klein sees the situation as a strange bedfellow one where community organizations and watchdogs are putting into place national regulatory frameworks for quite different reasons to those of industry players. Says Klein: “……industry officials consumer groups and regulatory experts all agree there has been a recent surge of requests for new regulations and one reason they give is the Bush administration’s willingness to include provisions that would block consumer lawsuits in state and federal courts." It is more than interesting that some of this thinking is reflected in the conceptual model proposed by Allens Arthur Robinson in the Composite Working Paper National Framework for Distribution and Retail Regulation recommendations (proposed national template Law, energy). Some are saying that it is like Christmas in particular industries. However, many clauses are being challenged in the US courts where they block the inherent right of individuals to seek seamless redress through the courts and are not theoretically expected to rely on advocacy and alternative dispute models alone. In the New York Times Opinion article dated 16 September 2007, still on the subject of uniform regulation and in the case of toys, for example, mandatory testing is believed to be a good idea in principle. However, it is observed that Each of us has needs and expectations that cannot just be boxed, categorized and subjected to the usual processes of statistical evaluation. Did Adam Smikth know every thing? How about Maslow? Read my tips on evaluation theory posted elsewhere on Gov2 and Club Troppo. Long-winded, I confess, but worthy of at least a second glance. Those were not my own ideas as freely confessed. They were the views of those whose expertise and writings have made me what I am by the mere existence of the availability of those views. I owe so much to so many who by there mere existence of what they have written and made accessible have influence the whole course of my life. They are responsbile for the passion that motivates me. There are too many to mention. Make no mistake. Some revered theorists are about to be challenged. How can anyone place people into categories simply to uphold outdated theories of consumer behaviour and market conduct. The 21st century has arrived. Consumers are just not what they used to be. My fly. Duty calls. Catch me if you can. I too am a 'Faceless Stakeholder,: the counterpart of the "Faceless Bureaucrat." I don't fit in a box and nor do any of your stakeholders. Forget about traditional marketing concept theories. Treat each of your stakeholders as individuals. The era of labelling people is outdated. Target, target, target is as to marketing theory as location, location, location is to propety. How about it guys? Capture the moment, but think sustainability? Walk in the shoes of your target audience and you will achieve. Make your goals sustainable, so say nothing of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and simly, the traditional SMART principles of good marketing theory. Some of those old acronyms do survive the test of time. Chose carefully swhat says and what goes. Not all theories ahd acronyms are sustainable. Toss out the textbooks that have not meaured up and may need to be revised. Oops, my coffee break is over. I am say behind. Regards Madeleine Kingston mkin2711@bigpond.net.au I felt so sure the blog above would be moderated, given my recent experiences of experimenting with openness, trust and moderation expectations in one blog forum or another. Don’t let me down. My standards are high. I walk away from negative relationships – always.

As mentioned before, I have had some negative experiences lately of blogging. Does this phase me? No. What are relationships without trust and tolerance of alternative viewpoints? If it is not there, move on.

Make word count and moderation policies clear from the outset. Don’t waste the time of committed stakeholders.

Does it matter that I am forming relationships with “Faceless Bureaucrats.” No. (stand up designer of the graphic of that article – my feedback is really positive – just love it).

Good to know that one can name pseudonyms, speak from the heart, make spelling mistakes, talk about the underlying meaning and purpose of Gov 2 (as opposed to Web2 – as in timely information provision in the moment).

Is Gov2 up to a few mistakes? Is it up to being honest. Engaging with stakeholders in a meaningful way for the long haul? If so, I am will still be around. If not, I will take the view that it was fun whilst it lasted, and move on to greener pastures.

Gov 2 Taskforce if you are there, and notwithstanding my half-teasing comments about your Faceless Persona (all bets off if you misinterpret this remark)

Hear me say this – speak up, let us know where things are at and whether the identified distinction between Web2 and Gov2 will be addressed in the interests of the improved governance and policy decisions that impact on the fundamentals of sustainability in every possible sphere.

Look for timely identification of problems in these arenas before they become entrenched. Seek application of layered participation. Identify your target market, but don’t neglect other more incidental and short-term engagement prospects.

I may joke, play innocent’ use escapist jargon; make obsure literary references; flatter; cajole; gesticulate; seek guidance with technical gaps in both accessing and providing data.

Bottom line:

I am seeking a reciprocal and sustained dialogue – and adoption of improved national governance and policy. I am not concerned about how this achieved, or what the budgetary constraints are; or what the delays may be. I just want to see this goal achieved.

Adam Smith – I bow to you as a legend. But times move on. I will never forget you.

Steve McShane and Tony Travaglione – your Organizational Behaviour on the Pacfic Rim was and is an inspiration to me. Splendidly presented. But it is three years since it was published. We need an update.

Already Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has been challenged – by McShane and Travaglione (2007)newcomers to the scene of Organizational Behaviour (on the Pacific Rim) 2007.

What else should be questioned in terms of assessing human needs and expectations? It would be too smug to cite the favourite theorists of the past.

Move with the times. Theorize in the here and now. Be prepared to reassess, re-evaluate, evaluate again – leave complacency behind. There is no room for it.

Don’t be afraid to seek professional evaluative advice. This means before not after the event. Evaluation is a process not an assessment of what has already occurred

I am looking for implementation of the deeper embedded message behind engagement and information exchange. I will be patient but also realistic – and I will be looking for deliverable and measurable outcomes that are timely and accountable.

I am not in the right demographic category for your target market at all if you are looking for superficial “in-the-moment” information provision.

I need and expect more – much more. Can you deliver it?

Don’t box me or anyone else in your target audience. Each of us is unique. Acknowledge that, respect it and allow for it.

Behavioural economics has for decades been under-evaluated and misunderstood, besides being an inexact science. That is why we cannot get assessments of consumer behaviour and market performance correctly assessed.

Have a look, for instance as the history of poorly assessed competitive markets in the energy erena, as one example of low-involvement commodity markets for which “rapid churn” has been mistaken for competition in action. Go back four decades and more. Learn from the lesson of recurrent history.

In 1979 Peter Applegarth, then Executive Member of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

“The Government’s actions are motivated by fear.
Fear that citizens will begin to tell the Government what the law should be, instead of the Government telling the citizens what the law.”

“All power is a trust handed to Government by the people. Any other power is usurpation.”

Now in the year 2008, Government initiatives are seeking to receive input from stakeholders adversely affected by regulations as evidenced by the philosophies embraced by the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry in Australia’s Consumer Policy Framework. There is a dearth of consumer input into enquiries such as this.

There are cautions about the tactical shift by industry groups, home and abroad and pertinent questions as to whether such a shift is motivated by a confluence of self-interest. In the area of goods, it is easy to say that growing competition from inexpensive imports that do not meet voluntary standards and a desire to head off liability lawsuits and pre-empt tough state laws or legal actions that may have resulted from a laissez-faire response to policies in place.

One interesting US example is the case of the Altria group, owner of the cigarette manufacturing firm Phillip Morris. The unexpected proposal was made by that group to allow the F.D.A. to regulate the manufacture and marketing of tobacco products.

Such legislation is pending in the US. Critics are saying that this is a bid by Phillip Morris to weaken opposition to cigarettes by working with the government, and could help the company maintain its market share.

Reducing regulatory burden is a long-time goal of the Productivity Commission in Australia as well as of other bodies. It is commendable if the outcomes for all concerned are equitable.

The energy industry in Australia appears to be super-enthusiastic about the changes proposed putting forward well-structured and plausible arguments in the interest of least burdensome regulatory control. What will be the consequences for consumers?

Rosario Palmieri, a regulatory lobbyist at the US National Association of Manufacturers, a body that has often opposed government regulations, is reported as observing the change with equanimity.

The Director of Regulatory Policy OMB Watch (Office of Management and Budget) of the Washington group that tracks regulatory actions has never seen so many industries joining the push for regulation. He poses a pertinent question: will this achieve a real increase in standards and public protections or simply serve corporate interests?

Of the US situation Sarah Klein, a lawyer at the Centre for Science in the Public Interest is seeking to examine the problems created by a failed voluntary system in the grocery store and produce grower segment.

Ms Klein sees the situation as a strange bedfellow one where community organizations and watchdogs are putting into place national regulatory frameworks for quite different reasons to those of industry players. Says Klein:

“……industry officials consumer groups and regulatory experts all agree there has been a recent surge of requests for new regulations and one reason they give is the Bush administration’s willingness to include provisions that would block consumer lawsuits in state and federal courts.”

It is more than interesting that some of this thinking is reflected in the conceptual model proposed by Allens Arthur Robinson in the Composite Working Paper National Framework for Distribution and Retail Regulation recommendations (proposed national template Law, energy).

Some are saying that it is like Christmas in particular industries.

However, many clauses are being challenged in the US courts where they block the inherent right of individuals to seek seamless redress through the courts and are not theoretically expected to rely on advocacy and alternative dispute models alone.

In the New York Times Opinion article dated 16 September 2007, still on the subject of uniform regulation and in the case of toys, for example, mandatory testing is believed to be a good idea in principle. However, it is observed that

Each of us has needs and expectations that cannot just be boxed, categorized and subjected to the usual processes of statistical evaluation. Did Adam Smikth know every thing? How about Maslow?

Read my tips on evaluation theory posted elsewhere on Gov2 and Club Troppo. Long-winded, I confess, but worthy of at least a second glance. Those were not my own ideas as freely confessed.

They were the views of those whose expertise and writings have made me what I am by the mere existence of the availability of those views.

I owe so much to so many who by there mere existence of what they have written and made accessible have influence the whole course of my life. They are responsbile for the passion that motivates me. There are too many to mention.

Make no mistake. Some revered theorists are about to be challenged. How can anyone place people into categories simply to uphold outdated theories of consumer behaviour and market conduct.

The 21st century has arrived.

Consumers are just not what they used to be.

My fly. Duty calls.

Catch me if you can. I too am a ‘Faceless Stakeholder,: the counterpart of the “Faceless Bureaucrat.”

I don’t fit in a box and nor do any of your stakeholders.

Forget about traditional marketing concept theories. Treat each of your stakeholders as individuals. The era of labelling people is outdated. Target, target, target is as to marketing theory as location, location, location is to propety.

How about it guys? Capture the moment, but think sustainability?

Walk in the shoes of your target audience and you will achieve.

Make your goals sustainable, so say nothing of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and simly, the traditional SMART principles of good marketing theory. Some of those old acronyms do survive the test of time.

Chose carefully swhat says and what goes. Not all theories ahd acronyms are sustainable. Toss out the textbooks that have not meaured up and may need to be revised.

Oops, my coffee break is over. I am say behind.

Regards

Madeleine Kingston

mkin2711@bigpond.net.au

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14653 Madeleine Kingston Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:33:19 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14653 Sherif I find myself on this page. Just as I was about to log out, I saw your comment to Alan's article. People who are the busiest always find the time. The key seems to be motivation. Such a complex issue and so misunderstood and under-categorized. No wonder consumers and markets are mis-assessed. Most of us don't quite fit into the boxes created for us. There is such a dearth of available economic data both in terms of behaviour on all sides of the fence and of market functioning. Those who do have data hide it under the proverbial bushel; or claim copyright and intellectual privileges, or don't really want to share and collaborate. People speal of "information philanthropy." That has a do-gooding flavour. I took Bunsen to task on Club Troppo for labelling people as "do-gooders", though I must say I walked into the spider's web without thinking, so deserved what I got, not without a small protest to clarify. Where are you Bunsen? I miss your teasing. The marketplace is changing daily. Consumers are becoming more discerning and sophisticated. The 21st century's innovations and forward thinking pressures are upon us all. If we want to keep up we just have to find the time, opportunity and motivation, not necessarily in that order. Thank you Alan for speaking of how not what should be released. At a deeper level let us look at how collaborations should really work, not just how information exchange can occur. Gov2 implies embedding the deeper meaning - nay it promises to do so. Web2 is more about information availability. Though the two are closely linked they mean different things. Bring on the deeper meaning. Madeleine Sherif

I find myself on this page. Just as I was about to log out, I saw your comment to Alan’s article.

People who are the busiest always find the time. The key seems to be motivation. Such a complex issue and so misunderstood and under-categorized.

No wonder consumers and markets are mis-assessed. Most of us don’t quite fit into the boxes created for us.

There is such a dearth of available economic data both in terms of behaviour on all sides of the fence and of market functioning.

Those who do have data hide it under the proverbial bushel; or claim copyright and intellectual privileges, or don’t really want to share and collaborate. People speal of “information philanthropy.” That has a do-gooding flavour.

I took Bunsen to task on Club Troppo for labelling people as “do-gooders”, though I must say I walked into the spider’s web without thinking, so deserved what I got, not without a small protest to clarify. Where are you Bunsen? I miss your teasing.

The marketplace is changing daily. Consumers are becoming more discerning and sophisticated. The 21st century’s innovations and forward thinking pressures are upon us all.

If we want to keep up we just have to find the time, opportunity and motivation, not necessarily in that order.

Thank you Alan for speaking of how not what should be released.

At a deeper level let us look at how collaborations should really work, not just how information exchange can occur.

Gov2 implies embedding the deeper meaning – nay it promises to do so. Web2 is more about information availability. Though the two are closely linked they mean different things.

Bring on the deeper meaning.

Madeleine

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14651 Madeleine Kingston Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:11:29 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14651 Just saw Nicholas Gruen's tweet on Adam Smith's relevance to the here and now. (Club Troppo), as conveniently accessed on tweet deck. Unfortunately comments must be closed or else I would have more thoroughly read the article and tried to participate. Will see if archives allow me access to comment. People are questioning whether Maslow had it all, and the order in which we seek to attain access to the hierarchy of needs. Boxing those seeking collaborative engagement is a mistake. This is an outdated theory sold to us by market concept theorists. Steven McShane and Tony Travalglione (2007) in discussing Maslow's Needs Hierarchy Theories seems "amazed that people had accepted his theory wholeheartedly without any critique." The topic is perhaps best discussed under motivation - so it will keep till I get back to an earlier blog today on "Online engagement as a public service pathway." That is where it really belongs. I will be back - on another page. Madeleine PS I feel like Alice in Wonderland, or perhaps the Cheshire Cat is more to the point, popping up here and there on this page and that - will I ever get back to the non-cyber world of reality? (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland - a study of people and organizations and their interactions). Cheers Madeleine Just saw Nicholas Gruen’s tweet on Adam Smith’s relevance to the here and now. (Club Troppo), as conveniently accessed on tweet deck. Unfortunately comments must be closed or else I would have more thoroughly read the article and tried to participate. Will see if archives allow me access to comment.

People are questioning whether Maslow had it all, and the order in which we seek to attain access to the hierarchy of needs. Boxing those seeking collaborative engagement is a mistake. This is an outdated theory sold to us by market concept theorists.

Steven McShane and Tony Travalglione (2007) in discussing Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy Theories seems “amazed that people had accepted his theory wholeheartedly without any critique.”

The topic is perhaps best discussed under motivation – so it will keep till I get back to an earlier blog today on “Online engagement as a public service pathway.” That is where it really belongs.

I will be back – on another page.

Madeleine

PS I feel like Alice in Wonderland, or perhaps the Cheshire Cat is more to the point, popping up here and there on this page and that – will I ever get back to the non-cyber world of reality? (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland – a study of people and organizations and their interactions).

Cheers

Madeleine

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14650 Madeleine Kingston Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:40:12 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14650 Well Matt You do talk in riddles. I say go for it. Take a gamble. Learn from mistakes. Is that not what we say to our children? If not why not? Madeleine Well Matt

You do talk in riddles.

I say go for it. Take a gamble. Learn from mistakes. Is that not what we say to our children? If not why not?

Madeleine

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14649 Madeleine Kingston Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:37:28 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14649 Andrae Your concerns are valid and deserve exploration. The 'i's and the 't's do need to be dotted. The legalities need to be nutted out. But the prospect of using data for the purposes of "lessons learnt" is compelling and needs consideration. To say nothing of transparency. Gov2 is in its infancy. No-one can predict the shortcomings of innovative ideas yet. It is OK to make some mistakes, admit to them, get back on the horse and hold one's head high. (Voice of experience here). Let us take a few risks. People are saying Australia is 20 years behind and risk-averse. Could they be right? Find a way round technicalities, legalities and blockades. Brick walls never phase the courageous. But honesty is a must. People will see through hype and gauze. Grand gestures won't work or fool the discerning public. Whose game amongst us? (notice the Royal or academic we, pardon the slip force of habit prevails). Let's do it. Make this happen. Madeleine Andrae

Your concerns are valid and deserve exploration. The ‘i’s and the ‘t’s do need to be dotted. The legalities need to be nutted out.

But the prospect of using data for the purposes of “lessons learnt” is compelling and needs consideration. To say nothing of transparency.

Gov2 is in its infancy. No-one can predict the shortcomings of innovative ideas yet. It is OK to make some mistakes, admit to them, get back on the horse and hold one’s head high. (Voice of experience here).

Let us take a few risks. People are saying Australia is 20 years behind and risk-averse. Could they be right?

Find a way round technicalities, legalities and blockades.

Brick walls never phase the courageous. But honesty is a must. People will see through hype and gauze. Grand gestures won’t work or fool the discerning public.

Whose game amongst us? (notice the Royal or academic we, pardon the slip force of habit prevails).

Let’s do it.

Make this happen.

Madeleine

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-14647 Madeleine Kingston Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:19:59 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-14647 Matt The technicalities of storage and retrieval in digital space are way beyond me. Mine is not to reason how, simply why (Parody of Charge for the Light Brigade) But.... I just love the idea of "So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold - - policies (like the above) with a bias towards ‘always open meta data’ and ‘usually open unless there are good reasons raw data’ - directory of pointers - showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government." Now regardless of the legalities or technicalities of holding data indefinitely, who should be responsible, how it happens -- Please let us remember the compelling reasons for doing this "Learning lessons from the past" If Government does not take this on as a commitment, how else will policies and governance improve? Please, please... Madeleine Matt

The technicalities of storage and retrieval in digital space are way beyond me. Mine is not to reason how, simply why (Parody of Charge for the Light Brigade)

But…. I just love the idea of

“So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold -

- policies (like the above) with a bias towards ‘always open meta data’ and ‘usually open unless there are good reasons raw data’

- directory of pointers

- showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government.”

Now regardless of the legalities or technicalities of holding data indefinitely, who should be responsible, how it happens –

Please let us remember the compelling reasons for doing this

“Learning lessons from the past”

If Government does not take this on as a commitment, how else will policies and governance improve?

Please, please…

Madeleine

]]>
By: Mike http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-1098 Mike Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:19:39 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-1098 <blockquote>What do you think? Should government departments embrace some of the principles of the open-source world in order to liberate public sector information?</blockquote> God no, unless we can implement restrictions that allow verification. Otherwise, go for it!

What do you think? Should government departments embrace some of the principles of the open-source world in order to liberate public sector information?

God no, unless we can implement restrictions that allow verification. Otherwise, go for it!

]]>
By: matt http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-1090 matt Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:56:58 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-1090 <blockquote>So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold - - policies (like the above) with a bias towards ‘always open meta data’ and ‘usually open unless there are good reasons raw data’ - directory of pointers - showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government. But it would not hold data or to the foreseeable future even meta data but as standards evolve and open perhaps it could hold meta data too.</blockquote> I don't have a problem with data.gov.au being a storage manager too. I don’t think it's reasonable to for every data producer, or publisher to make their data available forever, and to take on those costs. Suppose a small workgroup if formed to do some studies, and produce a quantity of data, should we expect them to host the data, and care for the infrastructure? Better to have a process when they can 'seal' the data and submit it to an archive, along with whatever metadata will aid discovery. Perhaps we need to ask, how long will published data need to be available? Then we can think about how that might be achieved (assuming the metadata and discovery are thrashed out satisfactorily). Regards Matt

So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold -
- policies (like the above) with a bias towards ‘always open meta data’ and ‘usually open unless there are good reasons raw data’
- directory of pointers
- showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government.

But it would not hold data or to the foreseeable future even meta data but as standards evolve and open perhaps it could hold meta data too.

I don’t have a problem with data.gov.au being a storage manager too.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to for every data producer, or publisher to make their data available forever, and to take on those costs.

Suppose a small workgroup if formed to do some studies, and produce a quantity of data, should we expect them to host the data, and care for the infrastructure? Better to have a process when they can ’seal’ the data and submit it to an archive, along with whatever metadata will aid discovery.

Perhaps we need to ask, how long will published data need to be available?
Then we can think about how that might be achieved (assuming the metadata and discovery are thrashed out satisfactorily).

Regards

Matt

]]>
By: Peter J Cooper (@pc0) http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 Peter J Cooper (@pc0) Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:47:41 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-1083 Alan great topic. I agree we need both the cathedral and the bazaar to get some dynamic tension. Generally Stephen, Mike, Andrae, Daniel, Mia, Tony, Hanare, Bec, Kerry, Ben are all on the right track in my mind. We also need to take some <strong>principle based</strong> '10 steps/rules' to <strong>simplify</strong> and ensure balance and break the current 'do nothing' nexus [department heads note expect a mandate memo from your boss soon :-) about releasing meta data and most data] - 1. clearly state what is available ? ... meta data (structure data about data to be released immediately on request) .. OR plain data (release subject to controls see below) ... OR Hybrid 2. treat 'sets' as 'endless streams' not as static point-in-time files like open source code (the stream of web site stats from a site does not have a version but the meta does) 3. treat sets as having endless variations on their meta, because we are always seeking further improvement, the joy of the journey so keep a meta version number and when it started/finished 4. state a clear owner for each set/stream and a clear point/s for community support [department heads note] 5. possibly distinguish between sets and streams (sets being point in time, streams being ongoing and more alive) 6. certainly hold and debate and refine all data in a decentralised way 7. index and create a central pointer directory with minimal barriers to listing or access or replication/federation of the directory and ideally the data 8. avoid picking a mandated technology, let the (federated) market decide, an initial short list may simplify and speed startup but no-exclusivity, no caps on new channels or access technologies 9. release everything unless clear legal/privacy/security reasons can be identified within (say) 14 days of a request (bear cost of materials?) and encourage minimal duplication through good access but don't mandate no-duplication 10. prohibit charging for raw data only for value adds So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold - - policies (like the above) with a bias towards 'always open meta data' and 'usually open unless there are good reasons raw data' - directory of pointers - showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government. But it would not hold data or to the foreseeable future even meta data but as standards evolve and open perhaps it could hold meta data too. Thoughts? Cheers, Pete. Alan great topic.

I agree we need both the cathedral and the bazaar to get some dynamic tension. Generally Stephen, Mike, Andrae, Daniel, Mia, Tony, Hanare, Bec, Kerry, Ben are all on the right track in my mind.

We also need to take some principle based ‘10 steps/rules’ to simplify and ensure balance and break the current ‘do nothing’ nexus [department heads note expect a mandate memo from your boss soon :-) about releasing meta data and most data] -

1. clearly state what is available ? … meta data (structure data about data to be released immediately on request) .. OR plain data (release subject to controls see below) … OR Hybrid
2. treat ’sets’ as ‘endless streams’ not as static point-in-time files like open source code (the stream of web site stats from a site does not have a version but the meta does)
3. treat sets as having endless variations on their meta, because we are always seeking further improvement, the joy of the journey so keep a meta version number and when it started/finished
4. state a clear owner for each set/stream and a clear point/s for community support [department heads note]
5. possibly distinguish between sets and streams (sets being point in time, streams being ongoing and more alive)
6. certainly hold and debate and refine all data in a decentralised way
7. index and create a central pointer directory with minimal barriers to listing or access or replication/federation of the directory and ideally the data
8. avoid picking a mandated technology, let the (federated) market decide, an initial short list may simplify and speed startup but no-exclusivity, no caps on new channels or access technologies
9. release everything unless clear legal/privacy/security reasons can be identified within (say) 14 days of a request (bear cost of materials?) and encourage minimal duplication through good access but don’t mandate no-duplication
10. prohibit charging for raw data only for value adds

So a truly resilient and dynamic data.gov.au would hold -
- policies (like the above) with a bias towards ‘always open meta data’ and ‘usually open unless there are good reasons raw data’
- directory of pointers
- showcase of best of breed voted by inside and outside the government.

But it would not hold data or to the foreseeable future even meta data but as standards evolve and open perhaps it could hold meta data too.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Pete.

]]>
By: Andrae Muys http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/26/lessons-from-the-open-source-world/comment-page-1/#comment-1082 Andrae Muys Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:57:00 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=662#comment-1082 Again, you need to be careful of your terminology here, and avoid over simplification. Accessible data is good - accessible data with an atom or rsync feed of updates is better. Federated search is good - but only if you have a standard query interface[1] but not if you need to perform joins or correlated queries. When data is open anyway, where is the security risk? The actual risk is not security, but currency - hence my mention of atom/rsync above. So the recommendation will need to be more nuanced. If we are willing to talk actual technologies[2], closer to: 1) Structured data should be made available in an open format with a well defined mapping into RDF (using standard vocabularies and RDFS/SKOS/OWL)[3] 2) Metadata should be made available in RDF compliant with AGRkMS, DCMI; with any extensions described in RDFS; supporting thesauri in SKOS; and ontology in OWL. 3) In addition, both structured-data and metadata should be exposed as a SPARQL endpoint. 4) Unstructured data should exposed using a full-text search api. Due to its field testing, the google search api is preferred (or even better a mapping of the GS-API into SPARQL). It's not enough to just have access to the data - we need to know what it means (hence points 1&2). It also isn't enough to just slap on a web-form frontend to a text-search box (as is currently done) to count as "access provided", you need real query facilities, with standard interfaces. Otherwise the transation costs kill you. [1] SPARQL is a good option for structured queries; Defining a mapping from the google search api to a virtual RDF graph would also allow you to use it for feature-oriented search. [2] If we want to remain tech-neutral, then we need to expand each of these technologies into a description of the capability they provide, and specify that - but that's a lot more work, and not something I'm going to attempt in a short post. [3] D2RQ and similar technologies are available to map SQL databases into RDF with minimal difficulty; although for really large datasets there are going to be unaddressed scalability issues. Again, you need to be careful of your terminology here, and avoid over simplification.

Accessible data is good – accessible data with an atom or rsync feed of updates is better.

Federated search is good – but only if you have a standard query interface[1]
but not if you need to perform joins or correlated queries.

When data is open anyway, where is the security risk? The actual risk is not security, but currency – hence my mention of atom/rsync above.

So the recommendation will need to be more nuanced. If we are willing to talk actual technologies[2], closer to:

1) Structured data should be made available in an open format with a well defined mapping into RDF (using standard vocabularies and RDFS/SKOS/OWL)[3]
2) Metadata should be made available in RDF compliant with AGRkMS, DCMI; with any extensions described in RDFS; supporting thesauri in SKOS; and ontology in OWL.
3) In addition, both structured-data and metadata should be exposed as a SPARQL endpoint.
4) Unstructured data should exposed using a full-text search api. Due to its field testing, the google search api is preferred (or even better a mapping of the GS-API into SPARQL).

It’s not enough to just have access to the data – we need to know what it means (hence points 1&2). It also isn’t enough to just slap on a web-form frontend to a text-search box (as is currently done) to count as “access provided”, you need real query facilities, with standard interfaces. Otherwise the transation costs kill you.

[1] SPARQL is a good option for structured queries; Defining a mapping from the google search api to a virtual RDF graph would also allow you to use it for feature-oriented search.
[2] If we want to remain tech-neutral, then we need to expand each of these technologies into a description of the capability they provide, and specify that – but that’s a lot more work, and not something I’m going to attempt in a short post.
[3] D2RQ and similar technologies are available to map SQL databases into RDF with minimal difficulty; although for really large datasets there are going to be unaddressed scalability issues.

]]>