I think it’s important to recognise that not all data use involves developers making apps – and not all open data use needs well structured machine readable data. That’s not to devalue app-based uses of data; nor to argue that we don’t need to move towards better structured machine readable data – but, to abuse the metaphor a little – there’s more than one sort of open data cart and horse.

In more detailed terms – see http://practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/2010/4-2-ogd-use-in-practice-rq2/#7 where I’ve looked at a large number of cases of open data use in practice to describe some of the diversity of forms of open data engagement…

Tim

I would argue that you need to deliver consistent, easily accessible raw data as a starting point. To then make sense of this data and to make it useful to people you need developers to produce applications that anyone can use.

I think you recognise this when you talk about tools in your post. However, in order to build these tools and for those tools to be useful the data issues need to be sorted out first.

Without data in a consistent and application accessible format (API) then you don’t have anything for people to effectively engage with.

To me this isn’t a technical issue it is a putting the cart before the horse issue.

Thanks for your comment. It’s really useful to help highlight the particular focus of an engagement 5-stars: they are encouraging open data initiatives to engage in dialogue with all users of data to get these things right – rather than setting out some specific technical requirements.

The 5-stars of linked data already provides some clear recommendations on technical standards for open data – but it’s important to recognise that APIs only drive engagement with one section of the possible users of open data – and so open data initiatives need to be listening to their users to progressively improve and move towards better data for all…

1. Lack of consistency between councils and government departments in the way that they publish data sets containing similar data. E.g. One council’s data set containing dentists is a completely different structure to another councils.

2. Lack of a decent/consistent API. Putting a PDF online is not good enough. XML or json documents are better but if the data sets were exposed through proper APIs this would definitely drive developer engagement.

In addition to the points you’ve raised I’d add that there is no explicit mention of local government data in here, although some data sets that are referenced – urban traffic management for example – will be held by local authorities. That is disappointing to those of us working in local authorities with an interest in opening up our data.

The merging of open data and personal data sharing for profit is a worrying development. It made me go back to the Iceland genetics project that was established with some similar aims and objectives back in the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCODE_genetics

Privacy and consent are key issues that the government don’t appear to have addressed yet.

Thanks for giving me something to mull over. It’s Christmas – a time for mulling, after all.