Public Accounts Committee recommendation on 5-stars of open data engagement

[Tim Davies]

Hello all,

As mentioned in an earlier mail today, the Public Accounts Committee have recommended that the government should look to make use of the Five Stars of Open Data Engagement. The recommendation is at http://www.opendataimpacts.net/engagement/open-data-engagement-recommended-by-uk-public-administration-committee/ and below

56. The Government should adopt a star-rating system for engagement, as recommended by Involve, for measuring, and reporting to Parliament on, Departments' progress on increasing accountability through open data. The Government should expect Departments to set out plans to move towards Five Star Engagement for all their data releases.

There's an interesting challenge in here. Right now, the five-stars of open data engagement isn't very developed as a measurement or rating tool. Unlike a technical 5-stars of Linked Open Data, there is not only single state of 'Putting data in context' that can be measured - but instead many things an agency could do.

So - two questions:

 - Should we try and develop a measurement framework to go with the five stars of open data engagement?

 - If so - how could it work? 

All the best

Tim

--

w: http://www.timdavies.org.uk | m: 07834 856 303 | twitter: timdavies

Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
--------------------------
Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958.

[Graham Lally]

Hi all,

On 17/03/2014 14:02, Tim Davies wrote:
> As mentioned in an earlier mail today, the Public Accounts Committee
> have recommended that the government should look to make use of the Five
> Stars of Open Data Engagement. The recommendation is
> at http://www.opendataimpacts.net/engagement/open-data-engagement-recommended-by-uk-public-administration-committee/
> and below
>
> 56. The Government should adopt a star-rating system for engagement, as
> recommended by Involve, for measuring, and reporting to Parliament on,
> Departments' progress on increasing accountability through open data.
> The Government should expect Departments to set out plans to move
> towards Five Star Engagement for all their data releases.

This is great news, and hopefully a step towards a broader expectation
on "open" as more than just data. Thanks for the link.

> There's an interesting challenge in here. Right now, the five-stars of
> open data engagement isn't very developed as a measurement or rating
> tool. Unlike a technical 5-stars of Linked Open Data, there is not only
> single state of 'Putting data in context' that can be measured - but
> instead many things an agency could do.
>
> So - two questions:
>
> - Should we try and develop a measurement framework to go with the five
> stars of open data engagement?

IMHO, it's definitely a good time to crystallise the scheme a bit more.
Whether it should extend to a "formal" measurement is up for discussion
- I'm always wary of overly-complex measurement for its own sake.

However, some "technical" approach to engagement would certainly be
beneficial (partly for my own attempts to build a practical tool to get
people talking about data). It also clarifies what "engagement" actually
means - at least as a shared implementation that can be compared and
implemented across groups.

My own opinion is that the notion of "context" is more important than
the 5 stars, in a way. Or rather, the 5 stars are a handy way to a)
categorise the different forms of activity around data, and b)
prioritise and focus efforts for data publishers.

A simple framework would be to allow for contextual links tied to
datasets (or data services, in the case of demand?) - a kind of "linked
data" but for resources rather than directly to other data. eg. for
dataset X, is there a link available to find:

- metadata (including ownership, providence, etc)
- comments
- usage examples
- code
- where to provide feedback/errors to

That's off the top of my head, but it keeps the idea of "context"
without enforcing a more rigid structure which then risks becoming
another set of schema for organisations to follow.

I guess the same links could also be made between any of the above too -
that is, you don't necessarily need to start from the data and work
outwards; metadata could refer to usage examples without the data even
being available.

I suspect there are some assumptions that need to be tackled either
before or after implementing something - dataset references, etc - but
would something like this make sense/be straightforward enough to be
adopted?

Best,
Graham

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Data Engagement" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to open-data-engage...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:open-data-engage...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tim Davies]

Hey Graham

This is really useful feedback. 

A simple framework would be to allow for contextual links tied to
datasets (or data services, in the case of demand?) - a kind of "linked
data" but for resources rather than directly to other data. eg. for
dataset X, is there a link available to find:

 - metadata (including ownership, providence, etc)
 - comments
 - usage examples
 - code
 - where to provide feedback/errors to

Some of these things I think are covered by the Social Information component of the ODI Open Data Certificates  (https://certificates.theodi.org/) so reviewing how that framework might be used to explore the five stars could be very useful.

I'm likewise against measurement for measurement sake - but quite interested in how simple self-assessment tools can help people (a) 'level up' in mapping and planning improved practice; and (b) consider the evidence they need to show they are adopting certain practices, as a means of ensuring that plans are being implemented, not just talked about.

All the best

Tim