This appendix was created from material generated from the SharePSI workshop of May 2010. The material is incorporated into the Open Data Manual with permission from Ton Zijlstra.
This format does not take the narrative approach of the rest of the manual. Instead, bullet points taken mostly verbatim from the original meeting have been collected into themes. The themes include:
The responses in italics have been created by the Open Data Manual’s authors.
Concern to keep own national perspective on licensing is often bigger than actual international differences
This is an important consideration. It can sometimes be important to create a consistent local understanding of the issues before embarking on a process of international collaboration.
Lack of harmonization between various EU level initiatives and projects, which risks fragmentation
While EU policy is never in perfect harmony, the trend tends is trending towards openness.
Public sector bodies in direct competition with market with services based on their data which they also sell
Resellers will be nudged towards the value-added market segments. However, they also provide a convienent level of service and are also able to market their services effectively. Therefore, the disruption to the current data market may be radical, but is unlikely to be terminal.
Current markets seeing disruption (e.g. publishers) because of governments’ publishing data sets with added value
See above.
National authorities are neither financed nor mandated to create international interoperability
That may appear to be the case on paper, however in practice there are very strong incentives to undertake practices which lead to international interoperability. There is more collaboration between academics of the same discipline between continents than there is between academics of differing disciplnes at the same university. Industries are also highly globalised. There are often international standards, codes of practice and norms which lend themselves to consistency between countries. Lastly, national authorities are much more likely to adopted accept international best practice than take on the cost of developing their own standards.
No unified data structures
Linked Data is an exciting prospect. There is likely to be a large degree of reliance on this technology to be able to bridge current concerns.
Needed level/scale may superseed current stakeholders
Do not underestimate the need to be able to meet the needs of local stakeholders. Grand, beautifully designed policy frameworks are wonderful. Yet, to a family interested in the water quality of the river, a spreadsheet is much more practical.
General resistance to overcome
Cyncism is often accompanied with cost concerns and worries that job scope will increase without any recognition. Once the concerns are allayed, managed or resolved, then the resistance will be overcome.
Drivers are often external
Pressure from the outside can sometimes move governments the fastest. There must be external demand to justify that governments should supply.
Closed government culture
Government is heterogenous. While some aspects of government are very closed, others are not. Start by talking to the receptive listeners.
Barriers are often internal
The fact that a barrier stands in the way is not by itself a sound rationale for inaction. Instead, the costs and benefits of overcoming that hurdle should be weighed against the relative costs and benefits of other options. The relative position of different options should determine what action is undertaken, rather than the absolute value of any obstacles.
Lack of knowledge (data holders and users)
Local open data communities hold a wealth of knowledge. Officials should be able to trust their users. They should create relationships, just as commercial suppliers create relationships with their customers.
Lack of awareness
Awareness is quickly increasing. The open data movement is no longer new. This means that there is far more information to bring people up to speed than there once was.
Risk of overcomplicating issues
There is not a single type of open government data system. As the body of the Open Data Manual explains, it is possible to have a perfectly functioning open data that fits in well with many budgets, cultures and technical infrastructures.
Government is concerned by complexity
Governments only need to absorb as much complexity as they think is practical. If a huge range of policies need to be adapted to fit into an open data framework, then start with data sets which are simpler. If a legacy system would be too expensive to move into an open data environment, make that fact public.
Tensions exist between those sticking to old roles and those trying to adapt to new ones
Tensions between old and new are perennial. This fact in itself should not prevent any change from occurring.
Government is concerned by losing control
Government also has a mandate to act in the best interests of its citizens and residents. The fear of losing control is one based out of a lack of experience with this particular area. As more and more examples of useful things being created with open data, that fear of losing control will ease.
No inexpensive conflict resolution
The data owner retains ownership. For the public sector, it holds significant power if any conflict situation arises.
Data is power
Data is often unrealised power. Data is collected by governments for specific purposes. They do not have the flexibiity to experiment with using that data in ways which were not anticipated.
Data catalogues perceived as centralisation (loss of power and control)
Data catalogues are created simply to make things easier for consumers of the data. While this may be perceived as the loss of power or control, it is also the adoption of responsibility for support and upkeep by a central agency.
Government is concerned by a lack of security
See the security section, below.
Public service does not see own need for open data
Officials talk. As open government data spreads, news of its positive effects inside of government will be spread too.
Government’s concern about open data’s long term sustainability
The ability for the private sector to be able to consume, process and analyse large volumes of data will not decrease. Nor will its demand. The sustainability of individual open data intiatives is less certain. Public sector managers should seek to develop programmes which will be financially viable across changes of governments.
Uncertain economic impact
The economic uncertainties of open data are real. However, this justification for open government data is not purely financial.
Little empirical evidence
Empirical evidence is growing.
If data owners are concern about security threats for distributing data openly, then they should third party services.
Once data have been modified, it would be a misrepresentation for the data’s modifier to claim that it is the original data. Therefore, if some harm is caused on the basis of that modification and/or misrepresentation, it’s likely that the data owner would have some form of legal recourse to be able to insulate themselves.
Effective communication is key. Data owners should be up-front with their data’s limitations. This information can be included as a seperate file along with the source data or be displayed along side a download link or similiar.
Data owners are in a position to disclaim any responsibility for reliance on the data’s accuracy in their terms of use.
Responsibility for security threats lies where it currently does.
It’s not as cheap as you may claim
There is more than one way to undertake an open data program. As we discuss within the manual, there are many alternatives to building a full service API. Many of those will be close to no cost.
Government procedures take a long time to change
They do. However, they are changing. Open data is no longer new.
No funds for transition
Start with changes which are likely to save money and increase efficiency. If there are data sets which different departments, or branches within departments need to go through a complicated process to access? If not, consider the difficulties that are currently required to access data from other levels of government. Each of these transaction costs impose a burden on officials.
The cost of transition falls with data owner, but revenue is gathered centrally by another agency
This is where a whole of government approach is required. There are circumstances where it is appropriate to look at a systems level to see the impact of current policy.
It’s not as expensive as you fear We hope the Open Data Manual can go some way to minimising any costs whcih are incurred.