Download to read offline
Uploaded byToshikazu Seto
CUPUM150709_SETO
This document compares the distribution of open geospatial data between cities in Japan and other countries. It finds that while Japanese cities provide a limited number and format of open datasets, including geospatial data, cities in the US and EU tend to provide more open data in various formats through platforms like CKAN. Specifically, US cities using Socrata organize data by format and have a relatively high proportion of RDF and geospatial data. The document calls for future research evaluating data usage and introducing civic applications to better achieve open government goals of citizen participation.
More Related Content
CUPUM150709_SETO
- 1. Toshikazu Seto* andYoshihide Sekimoto * Project Assistant Professor (Ph.D) Center for Spatial Information Science, the University of Tokyo Comparing the Distribution of Open Geospatial Information between the Cities of Japan and Other Countries 14th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management @ MIT 1/21
- 2. Outline • The backgroundon this study: open data • The overview and situation of Japanese open data cities • Comparison with open data in the international open data cities • Conclusions 2/21
- 3. 3/21 “Open means anyonecan freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness).” by opendefinition.org ■Open government diagram
- 4. G8 Open DataCharter 2013.6.18 → High Value Data is Geospatial ! Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-technical-annex http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/page4_000099.html 4/21
- 5.
- 6. Background and Purpose 1.The focus of open data for open government and geospatial information distribution （cf. Sui, 2014; Kitchen, 2014; Johnson and Robinson, 2015） – Civic engagement with open data/government – Information distribution by open data platform 2. Development and distribution of open geospatial data has not been compared at the local government level. • This study examined the present situation and quantitative evaluation of open geospatial data by comparing local governments in Japan and the international open data cities. 6/21
- 7. The Overview andSituation of Japanese Open Government Cities 7/21
- 8. The Distribution ofOpen Data by Japanese Local Governments Cities /Formats Population ODCities /AllCities Datasets Avg. Location Information ％ Prefecture >50k 8/47 961 120.1 320 33.3 Government OrdinanceCity >50k 10/20 981 98.1 115 11.7 CoreCity >30k 9/43 562 62.4 128 22.8 CityandTown <30k 71/1,742 1,757 24.7 483 27.5 Total - 98 4,261 - 1,046 24.5 8/21 GIS Datasets
- 9. Open Data Distributionin Japanese Local Governments （almost embedded in a static Web page: cannot easy to count!） 9/21
- 10. The Comparison ofAggregates with Open Data Formats in Japanese Cities ★：The aggregates with “Linked Open Data 5 Star index” 10/21 GIS
- 11. Fukuoka Yokohama Chiba Hachioji Kitamoto 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 50 100150 200 250 300 350 400 Dataset Popula on (x 10k) Ordinance City Core City City or Town CKAN Platform The Comparison of Japanese Open Local Governments 11/21
- 12. Comparison with OpenData in the International Open Government Cities 12/21
- 13. CKAN: about 110local governments (mainly European cities and a few Japanese cities) Socrata: many local governments in the United States
- 14.
- 15. Methods • To getall metadata of open data catalog of the individual cities using API (however, many open data cities difficult to deep access API). • We choose 10+1 typical open data cities worldwide. • To evaluate with quantitative status of published basic open data and open geospatial data 15/21
- 16. Tuscany Edo (Nigeria) Berlin Manchester Houston Canary Islands TainanMontréal Recife Gironde Fukuoka(Japan) Porto Alegre Ottawa Rio Grande Amsterdam Denver Rotterdam Helsinki Glasgow Copenhagen Mettmann Virginia Firenze Bari Posadas Aarhus Lexington Graz Rostock Linz Grand Rapids Canada Umeå Wallonia Sabae Kitamoto 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Datasets Population (10k) Comparison of Open Data Cities using the CKAN platform 16/21
- 17. Comparison of 10+1 InternationalOpen Government Cities City Name Platform Total population of metro area (10k) Urbanized area (km2) Datasets Resources Category Format Avg. Datasets GIS Datasets GIS Datasets (%) Amsterdam CKAN 236.1 593 157 479 18 9 3.1 78 16.3 Glasgow CKAN 94.8 262 372 512 13 13 1.4 429 83.8 Helsinki CKAN 145.6 790 1,163 1,292 19 13 1.1 79 6.1 Houston CKAN 562.9 4,827 225 357 42 19 1.6 199 55.7 Fukuoka CKAN 252.4 380 126 684 7 4 5.4 11 1.6 Boston Socrata 363.9 2,129 319 487 11 5 1.5 46 9.4 San Fransisco Socrata 684.8 3,649 826 1,748 11 4 2.1 577 33.0 Chicago Socrata 931.5 6,303 1,011 2,140 16 4 2.1 520 24.3 Dallas Socrata 414.5 3,033 55 96 5 4 1.7 9 9.4 New York Socrata 1,653.9 5,191 3,686 5,120 12 4 1.4 625 12.2 Philadelphia Github 402.5 2,104 228 536 15 8 2.4 196 36.6 Total 8,168 13,451 - - - 2,769 - 17/21
- 18. Cities /Formats Usual Formats GISFormats Others Apps TotalDocument ★ XLS ★★ CSV ★★★ XML ★★★ API ★★★★ RDF ★★★★★ SHP ★★ JSON・KML・ GML ★★★★ Amsterdam 52 17 31 0 12 0 30 11 326 479 Glasgow 15 56 337 6 0 0 40 54 4 512 Helsinki 86 922 27 17 0 0 63 29 148 1,292 Houston 50 91 10 3 6 0 185 10 2 357 Fukuoka 46 610 22 0 0 0 0 0 6 684 Boston 207 0 56 0 0 56 56 112 0 487 San Fransisco 0 0 437 437 0 437 0 437 0 1,748 Chicago 0 0 535 535 0 535 0 535 0 2,140 Dallas 0 0 24 24 0 24 0 24 0 96 New York 0 0 1,280 1,280 0 1,280 0 1,280 0 5,120 Philadelphia 183 3 13 9 110 0 118 5 95 536 Total 639 1,699 2,772 2,311 128 2,332 492 2,497 581 13,451 (Cont’d.) Comparison of Open Data Format of 10 International Open Government Cities ★：The aggregates with “Linked Open Data 5 Star index” 18/21
- 19. Conclusions – In termsof quantity, open data provided in Japan range from only a few to dozens of datasets; however, format types and platforms are limited. – In contrast, local governments in the US and EU are more open to the provision of data in various formats. Some local governments in the EU have adopted the open-source data portal platform CKAN, and provide open geospatial data in various formats. – In the US, local governments use Socrata, which allows data to be organized by format; it was found that the proportion of RDF and geospatial data was relatively high. 19/21
- 20. Future Research – Thedeeply evaluation (cf. number of views and downloads of open data) • Necessary to devise or even retrieve statistics in API for data portal – The evaluation by capture and introduction to the civic tech application • Update frequency and the data itself (in the case of geospatial information) creating precision scaling • Aim for open government: is the participation of a variety of citizens and entities able to achieve this? 20/21
- 21. Thank you foryour attention ! Please suggest your cities situation @tosseto tosseto@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp http://researchmap.jp/tosseto 21/21
Editor's Notes
- #2 Thank you chair, this is my first presentation in CUPUM（カプム）. Thank you for accepting our study and the opportunity to present it here.
- #3 Todays I will talk about topics.
- #4 “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose. And more important, Open data is tool of open government, this means transparency participation collaboration
- #5 In recent years, the concept of “open data” and “open government” have attracted attention from government agencies and international organizations, although greater amounts and types of open data are necessary for the realization of open governance.
- #6 This figure summarizes a census of the efforts of cities using open data. France is the world's third largest open data country, but a census at the local government level has not been established.
- #7 The background and purpose of the study are indicated in the points in this slide.
- #9 This figure shows the Japanese cities that have published open data. In Japan, there are three city-level, mainly ordinance cities that have published the most open data. However, prefectures and small cities seem to publish more open geospatial information.
- #10 Open government has been also promoted in Japan, but in many cities does not have an open data platform as shown on the left in the figure; however, it is embedded in a static Web page. Therefore, there is no easily available quantitative aggregate.
- #11 This table shows the format of the development status of normal open data and open geospatial data according to the scale of each city. The format of the geographical information is divided into three major categories, SHP, KML and CSV.
- #12 This figure shows the open data cities of Japan. The horizontal axis represents the population numbers, and the vertical axis indicates the published open datasets of the city. The major feature of open data cities in Japan is that open data in the population is less local government is active.
- #14 In the open data cities of the world, an open data platform called CKAN has been used most often. In particular, it is used in many EU countries. In Japan it has been adopted in three cities. On the other hand, in the US, the platform most widely adopted is Socrata. This is a proprietary name, but it is a basic multi-functional open source.
- #15 In addition, in some cities, such as Philadelphia and Chicago, open data have begun to be published on Github. Github, which civic hackers developed using open data, is the most suitable platform and will be considered in the future as a lot of cities migrate.
- #16 We try to get quantitative status of open data. This slide shows our method of this study. To get all metadata of open data catalog of the individual cities using API (however, many hosted cities cannot access deeply API). We choose 10+1 typical open data cities worldwide. To evaluate with quantitative status of published basic open data and open geospatial data
- #17 This shows the status of open data cities that use CKAN. The horizontal axis is the urban population, and the vertical axis shows the number of data sets. Helsinki, especially, shows what has been published using actively open data. In Japan only Fukuoka City has adopted CKAN.
- #18 International open government cities provide data in multiple formats. This table shows divergence in the number of data lists (datasets) and the actual data (data resources). The data set number is large and includes Helsinki, Chicago, New York. Open government cities using CKAN have between 1.1 and 5.4 different formats on average per dataset; in particular, Houston has real data constituting 42 policy categories provided in 19 formats; it provides the largest number of SHP files.
- #19 Although cities that use Socrata are often located in the United States, data items are recorded in 1.5 to 2.4 different formats on average, worldwide. This is due to the technical specifications of Socrata, which generally uses four formats: CSV, JSON, XML, and RDF. Otherwise, the Google Maps API is available for the visual interface, including maps and graphs. The amount of geographic information as a percentage of open data is different for each city, with an especially high proportion of more than 80% in Glasgow. However, New York, New York; San Francisco, California; and Chicago, Illinois use varying formats; in particular, New York and San Francisco have developed formats such as Geo JSON and KML because these formats are suitable for web applications. On the other hand, Amsterdam and Helsinki use CKAN for their portal sites, and geographic information on them is substantial because it is linked with external applications such as web GIS. Similarly, Philadelphia also added to the actual data provided in Github, as it supports the provision of data in a variety of APIs as a catalog.
- #20 This study can be summarized as follows. First, in terms of quantity, open data provided in Japan range from only a few to dozens of datasets; however, format types and platforms are limited. In contrast, local governments in the US and EU are more open to the provision of data in various formats. Some local governments in the EU have adopted the open-source data portal platform CKAN, and provide open geospatial data in various formats. In the US, local governments use Socrata, which allows data to be organized by format; it was found that the proportion of RDF and geospatial data was relatively high.
- #21 This slide shows future work and challenges derived from this study. We think aggregation by a number of views and downloads of open data is desirable. Second, is the evaluation by capture and introduction to the civic tech application. The first point is that of updating the frequency and the data itself (in the case of geospatial information) to create precision scaling. The second point is to aim for open government. Is the participation of a variety of citizens and entities able to achieve this?
- #22 This presentation is finished. Thank you for your attention.