On a few hours notice, due to another presenter's "volcano-cancelled" flight, I was asked to fill an empty slot at the Norwegian GoOpen 2010 conference. On the background of the freshly proposed data.norge.no site, I decided to present a high level motivation for open data and linked open data in context of government, briefly compare and contrast its predecessors, data.gov and data.gov.uk, and suggest a possible middle ground between "anything goes" and "one format only" (in Norwegian).
EU-direktiv fra 2003 – det såkalte PSI-direktivet (Public SectorInformation). Direktivet slår fast at mest mulig offentlige data og dokumenter skal gjøres tilgjengelig for borgerne. Direktivet sier imidlertid også at man kan ta betalt for ekstra innsats knyttet til å gjøre dataene tilgjengelige. MEPSIR-rapporten brukes mye av dem som mener det ligger et stort innovasjonspotensial i offentlige data. Den er basert på spørreundersøkelser i alle EU-land + Norge, hvor blant annet respondentene er bedt om å anslå størrelsen av markedet for offentlige data. 15 norske offentlige dataeiere og en såkalt ”re-user” har svart.Danskene har fått Gartner til å lage en rapport: Den sier ikke så mye mer konkret om innovasjonspotensialet enn at det finnes, men anbefaler noen strategier videre:Å fastsette en strategi for innovativ bruk av off. dataDefinere prinsipper og retningslinjer, herunder transparent prisstrukturLøse prinsipielle problemstillinger knyttet til sikkerhet, rettigheter, lisensstruktur og rettferdig konkurranse (det høres så lett ut når man ramser det opp på den måten der)Etablere prosess for vurdering av søknader om tilgang til offentlige dataEtablere oversikt over offentlige data og legge til rette for infrastruktur som sikrer adgang til offentlige data
Los (eng.: “harbor pilot”)Spring 2007: Launch (municipality of Bergen portal first pilot)Shared classification system for information about public services - used by maybe 100 municipalities/counties todayLos has a two level topical structure that can be used as a navigation structure by public web sitesStated advantages:Counties don’t have to work out a local information structureResidents can easily find out the information he / she needs without necessarily knowing much about public sectorPublic websites and the use of these concepts are harmonized and easily recognizable for citizensIt will be easier to share data with other government agencies that use the systemhttp://www.norge.no/los/
GoOpen 2010: Fra Open Data til Linked Open Data
Fra Open Data tilLinkedOpen Data<br />Stian Danenbarger <@stidan><br />Bouvet ASA <br /><email@example.com> <br />
Estimert ROI på 4000 % (!)</li></li></ul><li>W. David Stephenson<br />“The potential benefits of democratizing data are many, and varied:<br />more informed policy debate, grounded in fact, rather than rhetoric<br />consensus building<br />betterlegislation<br />greater transparency and less corruption: greater accountability<br />optimizing program efficiency and reducing costs<br />new perspectives, especially when “the wisdom of crowds” emerges.<br />Who would have believed that dry data […] could become the engine to involve the public in governmental transformation!”<br />”Democratizing Data” (O’Reilly Media, under arbeid)<br />
“A hierarchy of database journalism”<br />Level 5: Data experiences and storytelling<br />Level 4: Data visualization<br />Level 3: Data exploration<br />Level of ambition<br />Level 2: Data search<br />Level 1: Data delivery<br />"If we can find enough of these things that intersect <br />with the lives of our readers, I think we will be all right.“<br />− Dennis Ryerson, Editor, “the Indianapolis Star”<br />Basert på Rich Gordon: “Data as journalism, journalism as data” (2007)<br />
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Brussels, 7.5.2009<br />onthere-useof Public SectorInformation<br />– ReviewofDirective 2003/98/EC –<br />
Semicolon<br />Hvordan blir handlingsplanene fulgt opp? <br />De årlige tildelingsbrevene fra det enkelte fagdepartement til underliggende etater definerer hvilke oppgaver etatene skal utføre gjennom det kommende året. Disse har lite eller ingen fokus på samhandling med andre etater.<br /><ul><li>“Siloene” går hele veien fra departement og ned til operativ etat.</li></ul>Regjeringens samhandlingsstrategier blir ikke fulgt opp av departementene !!<br />
“So far, the deployment of EI has been based strongly on a combination of the following two objectives:<br /><ul><li>Objective 1: Supporting a “big bang” transition to a more efficient, enterprise-wide “best way” of working. This seeks to make sure that the enterprise remains competitive under changing market conditions. This new best way of working is defined by a relatively small group of dedicated expert analysts (industrial engineers, business engineers, information analysts etc.) and implemented and maintained top-down.
Objective 2: Once the major change related to Objective 1 is completed and the new way of working has become business as usual, exploiting the predicted gains in efficiency as much and as long as possible in order to secure a proper return on the investment made during the initial big bang change process.”</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Objective 3: EI should stimulate value creation based on innovation and co-creation in a context of networked enterprises that is very much defined bottom-up, by creative, committed workers. </li></ul>According to this perspective, EI helps “reflective practitioners” to manage their work, their responsibilities, the key knowledge they possess, and their relations to the work and knowledge of others (inside and outside their own enterprise). Unlike the traditional approach, this support is not driven top-down and purely enterprise centric, but allows a much more individual and subjective approach that leverages personal creativity and initiative. <br />While traditionally individuals were supposed to adjust to “the system”, now the situation is reversed: the system is much more<br />about supporting the individuals.”<br />
“If we let the computer do the job and stop worrying about the operations executed inside the black box, this may imply an ever-greater decrease in our knowledge and insight on how the public sector in society works with regard, for example, to distribution and re-distribution of money between the different layers in the community. Moreover, we will be more and more helpless if we try to examine the correctness of government decisions concerning our lives and welfare. Such a situation would affect the very relationship between government and its' citizens in a democratic society under the rule of law, namely, the capability of citizens to participate in the decision-making and control of dispositions by government authorities. The many at the bottom may have greater problems than before in controlling the few at the top.”<br />“Transparent computer systems - transparent government“, D. W. Schartum (1995)<br />
Samhandling krever delte definisjoner – og delte identifikatorer for disse<br />Gjelder ikke bare entiteter – også relasjoner og føringer<br />Eksempel: <br />Skole, skoleeier – og relasjonene mellom <br />Fag, eksamen, skole – og relasjonene mellom<br />Når flere løsninger skal spille sammen, må identifikatorene løftes ut av de lokale systemene<br />
“[…] regardless of what may be regarded as a true service-orientation, we should avoid employing computerized systems in a way that reduces the number of citizens who are actively participating in legal decision-making processes, concerning him- or herself, and in democratic debates. […] Here, when I talk about transparency, I am not primarily thinking of the insight represented by thin layers of pleasant simplifications, in the shape of glossy brochures. Instead, I wish to give attention to the problem of communicating knowledge concerning the very bedrock of legal and administrative complexity. […] Our society is not based on freedom and justice because this is the most cost-efficient way to construct a society”<br />“Transparent computer systems - transparent government“, D. W. Schartum (1995)<br />