Open Government Directive Timeline
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Schuman
Dec 8, 2009, 12:36:35 PM12/8/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/12/08/open-government-directive-timelines/
Daniel Schuman
Policy Counsel | Sunlight Foundation
Twitter: danielschuman | 202-713-5795
Open Government Directive Timelines
Tags: ogd, Open Government Directive
This morning, the White House released the Open Government Directive, which John explains here. I’ve gone through the Directive (rather quickly), and reorganized it into a timeline checklist for the Administration.*
45 days — January 22, 2010
- “Each agency shall identify and publish online in an open format at least three high-value data sets and register those data sets via Data.gov” (p.2)
- “Each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending information publicly disseminated through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The official shall participate in the agency’s Senior Management Council, or similar governance structure, for the agency-wide internal control assessment pursuant to the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act.” (p.4)
- “The Deputy Director for Management at OMB, the Federal Chief
Information Officer, and the Federal Chief Technology Officer will
establish a working group that focuses on transparency, accountability,
participation, and collaboration within the Federal Government. This
group, with senior level representation from program and management
offices throughout the Government, will serve several critical
functions, including:
- i. Providing a forum to share best practices on innovative ideas to promote transparency, including system and process solutions for information collection, aggregation, validation, and dissemination;
- ii. Coordinating efforts to implement existing mandates for Federal spending transparency, including the Federal Funding Accountability Transparency Act and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act; and
- iii. Providing a forum to share best practices on innovative ideas to promote participation and collaboration, including how to experiment with new technologies, take advantage of the expertise and insight of people both inside and outside the Federal Government, and form high-impact collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and civil society.” (p.5)
60 days — February 6, 2010
- “Each agency shall create an Open Government Webpage located at http://www.[agency].gov/open to serve as the gateway for agency activities related to the Open Government Directive” (p.2)
- “The Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a framework for the quality of Federal spending information publicly disseminated through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The framework shall require agencies to submit plans with details of the internal controls implemented over information quality, including system and process changes, and the integration of these controls within the agency’s existing infrastructure. An assessment will later be made as to whether additional guidance on implementing OMB guidance on information quality is necessary to cover other types of government information disseminated to the public.” (p.4)
- “The Federal Chief Information Officer and the Federal Chief Technology Officer shall create an Open Government Dashboard on www.whitehouse.gov/open. The Open Government Dashboard will make available each agency’s Open Government Plan, together with aggregate statistics and visualizations designed to provide an assessment of the state of open government in the Executive Branch and progress over time toward meeting the deadlines for action outlined in this Directive.” (p.5)
90 days — March 8, 2010
- “The Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a framework for how agencies can use challenges, prizes, and other incentive-backed strategies to find innovative or cost-effective solutions to improving open government.” (p.5)
120 days — April 7, 2010
- “The Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a longer-term comprehensive strategy for Federal spending transparency, including the Federal Funding Accountability Transparency Act and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. This guidance will identify the method for agencies to report quarterly on their progress toward improving their information quality.” (p.4)
- “Each agency shall develop and publish on its Open Government Webpage an Open Government Plan that will describe how it will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities. Additional details on the required content of this plan are attached. Each agency’s plan shall be updated every two years.” (p.4)
- “The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), in consultation with the Federal Chief Information Officer and the Federal Chief Technology Officer, will review existing OMB policies, such as Paperwork Reduction Act guidance and privacy guidance, to identify impediments to open government and to the use of new technologies and, where necessary, issue clarifying guidance and/or propose revisions to such policies, to promote greater openness in government.” (p.6)
1 year — December 8, 2010
- “Each agency with a significant backlog of outstanding Freedom of Information requests shall take steps to reduce any such backlog by ten percent each year” (p.3)
2 years — December 8, 2011
- Each agency’s Open Government Plan “shall be updated every two years” (p.4)
Undated
- “Proactively use modern technology to disseminate useful information, rather than waiting for specific requests under FOIA” (p.2)
- “Each agency shall publish its annual Freedom of Information Act Report in an open format on its Open Government Webpage in addition to any other planned dissemination methods” (p.3)
- “Each agency shall comply with guidance on implementing specific Presidential open government initiatives, such as Data.gov, eRulmaking, IT Dashboard, Recovery.gov, and USAspending.gov” (p.3)
* I am assuming calendar days.
Daniel Schuman
Policy Counsel | Sunlight Foundation
Twitter: danielschuman | 202-713-5795
Josh Tauberer
Dec 9, 2009, 7:50:10 AM12/9/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
(http://razor.occams.info/blog/2009/12/09/open-government-directive-evaluation-on-principles/)
Open Government Directive Evaluation on Principles
Last week I reviewed the House�s Statement of Disbursement electronic
document along the dimensions of principles of open government data. The
Open Government Directive (OGD) talks about how agencies should go about
the process of opening data. Here is a review of what the OGD says,
organized by open data principle.
I�ll put the conclusion up front: The OGD addresses nearly all of the
open government data principles that have been put forward, and even
adds two of its own: being pro-active about data release and creating
accountability by designating an official responsible for data quality
(more on these at the end). So from this perspective, the OGD is pretty
spot-on. It is very strong in public input, public review, and
interagency coordination, which are normally the weakest spots of
government data (but, on the other hand, this isn�t data, this is a
goal, so the proof will be in the pudding). It could have been stronger
in the areas of machine processability & promoting analysis, and
explaining what is appropriate for data licensing (ideally, none).
Here are the details:
Information is not meaningfully public if it is not available on the
Internet for free.
The OGD says �each agency shall take prompt steps to expand access to
information by making it available online in open formats.� The OGD
itself doesn�t say free, but executive branch policy already requires
that public information not be sold to the public at more than the
marginal cost of distribution � which is about as good as one might
expect. So we�ll count this principle as asserted by the OGD.
� GOOD
Data Should Be Primary. Primary data is data as collected at the source,
with the finest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or
modified forms.
In the OGD�s appendix where it outlines further details for agencies, it
says agencies should release data �as granular as possible�.
� GOOD
Timely.
The OGD days, �Timely publication of information is an essential
component of transparency. Delays should not be viewed as an inevitable
and insurmountable consequence of high demand.�
� GOOD
Accessible. Data are available to the widest range of users for the
widest range of purposes, meaning use an open standard, with a bulk
download, and with documentation.
Machine processable: Data are reasonably structured to allow automated
processing.
The OGD specifically defines �open format� � which is the subject of the
directive � as something that is platform independent and machine
readable. Now, here the OGD slips a little because it redefines �open�
but actually leaves out open standards. I don�t think that was
intentional, so we�ll give the OGD credit for mentioning open standards
even though it didn�t exactly. It mentions �downloadable� but not in
bulk, and there is no mention of documentation in the OGD. We can�t tell
what the OGD meant by �machine readable� � I think of this term now a
sloppy form of �machine processable�. It would have helped if the OGD
specifically noted that the point is to support analysis and reuse of
the data.
I used to use �machine readable� until someone corrected me that really
any format can be read by a machine. The question is what the machine
can do with it: to what degree can the data be meaningfully processed by
a machine? So now I use machine-processable.
� WEAK
Non-discriminatory: Data are available to anyone, with no requirement of
registration.
Non-proprietary: Data are available in a format over which no entity has
exclusive control.
License-free. Dissemination of the data is not limited by intellectual
property law or other terms.
The OGD says data must be �made available to the public without
restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information.� Here we
could have really benefited from some simple but concrete guidance.
� WEAK
Promote analysis: Data published by the government should be in formats
and approaches that promote analysis and reuse of that data.
There is a sense in which this is implicit in the OGD, but maybe it is
the goggles through which I read it. The OGD fails to say explicitly
that analysis is the whole point of open government data.
� FAIL
Public input: The public is in the best position to determine what
information technologies will be best suited for the applications the
public intends to create for itself.
Public review: There should be a means for the public to interact with
the data publisher during and after the data has been made. The public
may have questions or may find errors. The process of creating the data
should also be transparent.
These principles are perhaps the least commonly addressed, and yet it is
one of the most prominent aspects of the OGD. The OGD requires agencies
to allow the public to give feedback on data quality, data
prioritization, and other aspects of the agency�s OGD plan. In fact, the
OGD says, �Each agency shall respond to public input received on its
Open Government Webpage on a regular basis.�
In addition, the OGD will form a working group (described next) that
will discuss �ideas to promote participation and collaboration,
including how to � take advantage of the expertise and insight of people
In the appendix where it outlines further goals for agencies, the OGD
says, �Your agency should also identify key audiences for its
information and their needs, and endeavor to publish high-value
information for each of those audiences in the most accessible forms and
formats.�
� EXCELLENT
Interagency coordination: Interoperability makes data more valuable by
making it easier to derive new uses from combinations of data. To the
extent two data sets refer to the same kinds of things, the creators of
the data sets should strive to make them interoperable.
The OGD will establish a working group lead by the Deputy Director for
practices for data collection, aggregation, validation, and
dissemination throughout the government, to coordinate implementations
of federal spending transparency, and to provide a forum for sharing
best practices for participation.
� EXCELLENT
Provenance and trust: Published content should be digitally signed or
include attestation of publication/creation date, authenticity, and
integrity.
Permanent Web Address: The file should have a stable location.
Safe file formats: Government bodies publishing data online should
always seek to publish using data formats that do not include executable
content.
Globally Unique Identifiers: This concept, important on the world wide
web, is that any document, resource, data record, or entity mentioned in
a database, or some might say every paragraph in a document, should have
a unique identification that others can use to point to or cite it
elsewhere.
Linked Open Data: This is a method for publishing databases in a
standard format for interconnectivity with other databases without the
expense of wide agreement on unified inter-agency or global data standards.
These get into some of the more precise details of data format. I might
have liked to see provenance & trust addressed, but I am not sure
whether I would really expect these principles to be included in a high
level 120-day plan, at least not at this point. So their absence is not
something I hold against the OGD. Still:
� FAIL
Other Notes
The OGD talks about being proactive with data release.
The OGD also adds accountability: �Each agency � shall designate a
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
Open Government Directive Evaluation on Principles
Last week I reviewed the House�s Statement of Disbursement electronic
document along the dimensions of principles of open government data. The
Open Government Directive (OGD) talks about how agencies should go about
the process of opening data. Here is a review of what the OGD says,
organized by open data principle.
I�ll put the conclusion up front: The OGD addresses nearly all of the
open government data principles that have been put forward, and even
adds two of its own: being pro-active about data release and creating
accountability by designating an official responsible for data quality
(more on these at the end). So from this perspective, the OGD is pretty
spot-on. It is very strong in public input, public review, and
interagency coordination, which are normally the weakest spots of
government data (but, on the other hand, this isn�t data, this is a
goal, so the proof will be in the pudding). It could have been stronger
in the areas of machine processability & promoting analysis, and
explaining what is appropriate for data licensing (ideally, none).
Here are the details:
Information is not meaningfully public if it is not available on the
Internet for free.
The OGD says �each agency shall take prompt steps to expand access to
information by making it available online in open formats.� The OGD
itself doesn�t say free, but executive branch policy already requires
that public information not be sold to the public at more than the
marginal cost of distribution � which is about as good as one might
expect. So we�ll count this principle as asserted by the OGD.
� GOOD
Data Should Be Primary. Primary data is data as collected at the source,
with the finest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or
modified forms.
In the OGD�s appendix where it outlines further details for agencies, it
says agencies should release data �as granular as possible�.
� GOOD
Timely.
The OGD days, �Timely publication of information is an essential
component of transparency. Delays should not be viewed as an inevitable
and insurmountable consequence of high demand.�
� GOOD
Accessible. Data are available to the widest range of users for the
widest range of purposes, meaning use an open standard, with a bulk
download, and with documentation.
Machine processable: Data are reasonably structured to allow automated
processing.
The OGD specifically defines �open format� � which is the subject of the
directive � as something that is platform independent and machine
readable. Now, here the OGD slips a little because it redefines �open�
but actually leaves out open standards. I don�t think that was
intentional, so we�ll give the OGD credit for mentioning open standards
even though it didn�t exactly. It mentions �downloadable� but not in
bulk, and there is no mention of documentation in the OGD. We can�t tell
what the OGD meant by �machine readable� � I think of this term now a
sloppy form of �machine processable�. It would have helped if the OGD
specifically noted that the point is to support analysis and reuse of
the data.
I used to use �machine readable� until someone corrected me that really
any format can be read by a machine. The question is what the machine
can do with it: to what degree can the data be meaningfully processed by
a machine? So now I use machine-processable.
� WEAK
Non-discriminatory: Data are available to anyone, with no requirement of
registration.
Non-proprietary: Data are available in a format over which no entity has
exclusive control.
License-free. Dissemination of the data is not limited by intellectual
property law or other terms.
The OGD says data must be �made available to the public without
restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information.� Here we
could have really benefited from some simple but concrete guidance.
� WEAK
Promote analysis: Data published by the government should be in formats
and approaches that promote analysis and reuse of that data.
There is a sense in which this is implicit in the OGD, but maybe it is
the goggles through which I read it. The OGD fails to say explicitly
that analysis is the whole point of open government data.
� FAIL
Public input: The public is in the best position to determine what
information technologies will be best suited for the applications the
public intends to create for itself.
Public review: There should be a means for the public to interact with
the data publisher during and after the data has been made. The public
may have questions or may find errors. The process of creating the data
should also be transparent.
These principles are perhaps the least commonly addressed, and yet it is
one of the most prominent aspects of the OGD. The OGD requires agencies
to allow the public to give feedback on data quality, data
prioritization, and other aspects of the agency�s OGD plan. In fact, the
OGD says, �Each agency shall respond to public input received on its
Open Government Webpage on a regular basis.�
In addition, the OGD will form a working group (described next) that
will discuss �ideas to promote participation and collaboration,
including how to � take advantage of the expertise and insight of people
both inside and outside the Federal Government, and form high-impact
collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and civil society.�
In the appendix where it outlines further goals for agencies, the OGD
says, �Your agency should also identify key audiences for its
information and their needs, and endeavor to publish high-value
information for each of those audiences in the most accessible forms and
formats.�
� EXCELLENT
Interagency coordination: Interoperability makes data more valuable by
making it easier to derive new uses from combinations of data. To the
extent two data sets refer to the same kinds of things, the creators of
the data sets should strive to make them interoperable.
The OGD will establish a working group lead by the Deputy Director for
Management at OMB, the Federal Chief Information Officer, and the
Federal Chief Technology Officer to provide a forum to share best
practices for data collection, aggregation, validation, and
dissemination throughout the government, to coordinate implementations
of federal spending transparency, and to provide a forum for sharing
best practices for participation.
� EXCELLENT
Provenance and trust: Published content should be digitally signed or
include attestation of publication/creation date, authenticity, and
integrity.
Permanent Web Address: The file should have a stable location.
Safe file formats: Government bodies publishing data online should
always seek to publish using data formats that do not include executable
content.
Globally Unique Identifiers: This concept, important on the world wide
web, is that any document, resource, data record, or entity mentioned in
a database, or some might say every paragraph in a document, should have
a unique identification that others can use to point to or cite it
elsewhere.
Linked Open Data: This is a method for publishing databases in a
standard format for interconnectivity with other databases without the
expense of wide agreement on unified inter-agency or global data standards.
These get into some of the more precise details of data format. I might
have liked to see provenance & trust addressed, but I am not sure
whether I would really expect these principles to be included in a high
level 120-day plan, at least not at this point. So their absence is not
something I hold against the OGD. Still:
� FAIL
Other Notes
The OGD talks about being proactive with data release.
The OGD also adds accountability: �Each agency � shall designate a
high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and
objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending
information publicly disseminated.�
objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
J.H. Snider
Dec 9, 2009, 10:04:49 AM12/9/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Josh,
Very nice review, but I wouldn't downplay the system of enforcement and
sanctions. For me, this is the achilles heel of open government policies.
They tend to be strong on principles and awful on accountability.
Accountability is not an afterthought. It is essential to ensure that open
government principles don't degenerate into mere PR. Sure, without
meaningful accountability many agencies will still follow and tout the rules
when it is in their self-interest to do so. This may be an improvement over
the status quo, but it will be a far cry from the accountability we are
really seeking.
--Jim
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
-----Original Message-----
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Tauberer
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:50 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [openhouseproject] Open Government Directive - Evaluation
(http://razor.occams.info/blog/2009/12/09/open-government-directive-evaluati
information by making it available online in open formats." The OGD
itself doesn't say free, but executive branch policy already requires
expect. So we'll count this principle as asserted by the OGD.
- GOOD
Data Should Be Primary. Primary data is data as collected at the source,
with the finest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or
modified forms.
In the OGD's appendix where it outlines further details for agencies, it
says agencies should release data "as granular as possible".
- GOOD
Timely.
The OGD days, "Timely publication of information is an essential
Accessible. Data are available to the widest range of users for the
widest range of purposes, meaning use an open standard, with a bulk
download, and with documentation.
Machine processable: Data are reasonably structured to allow automated
processing.
The OGD specifically defines "open format" - which is the subject of the
directive - as something that is platform independent and machine
readable. Now, here the OGD slips a little because it redefines "open"
but actually leaves out open standards. I don't think that was
intentional, so we'll give the OGD credit for mentioning open standards
even though it didn't exactly. It mentions "downloadable" but not in
bulk, and there is no mention of documentation in the OGD. We can't tell
what the OGD meant by "machine readable" - I think of this term now a
sloppy form of "machine processable". It would have helped if the OGD
Non-discriminatory: Data are available to anyone, with no requirement of
registration.
Non-proprietary: Data are available in a format over which no entity has
exclusive control.
License-free. Dissemination of the data is not limited by intellectual
property law or other terms.
The OGD says data must be "made available to the public without
restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information." Here we
Promote analysis: Data published by the government should be in formats
and approaches that promote analysis and reuse of that data.
There is a sense in which this is implicit in the OGD, but maybe it is
the goggles through which I read it. The OGD fails to say explicitly
that analysis is the whole point of open government data.
- FAIL
Public input: The public is in the best position to determine what
information technologies will be best suited for the applications the
public intends to create for itself.
Public review: There should be a means for the public to interact with
the data publisher during and after the data has been made. The public
may have questions or may find errors. The process of creating the data
should also be transparent.
These principles are perhaps the least commonly addressed, and yet it is
one of the most prominent aspects of the OGD. The OGD requires agencies
to allow the public to give feedback on data quality, data
prioritization, and other aspects of the agency's OGD plan. In fact, the
OGD says, "Each agency shall respond to public input received on its
including how to . take advantage of the expertise and insight of people
Interagency coordination: Interoperability makes data more valuable by
making it easier to derive new uses from combinations of data. To the
extent two data sets refer to the same kinds of things, the creators of
the data sets should strive to make them interoperable.
The OGD will establish a working group lead by the Deputy Director for
Management at OMB, the Federal Chief Information Officer, and the
Federal Chief Technology Officer to provide a forum to share best
practices for data collection, aggregation, validation, and
dissemination throughout the government, to coordinate implementations
of federal spending transparency, and to provide a forum for sharing
best practices for participation.
- EXCELLENT
Provenance and trust: Published content should be digitally signed or
include attestation of publication/creation date, authenticity, and
integrity.
Permanent Web Address: The file should have a stable location.
Safe file formats: Government bodies publishing data online should
always seek to publish using data formats that do not include executable
content.
Globally Unique Identifiers: This concept, important on the world wide
web, is that any document, resource, data record, or entity mentioned in
a database, or some might say every paragraph in a document, should have
a unique identification that others can use to point to or cite it
elsewhere.
Linked Open Data: This is a method for publishing databases in a
standard format for interconnectivity with other databases without the
expense of wide agreement on unified inter-agency or global data standards.
These get into some of the more precise details of data format. I might
have liked to see provenance & trust addressed, but I am not sure
whether I would really expect these principles to be included in a high
level 120-day plan, at least not at this point. So their absence is not
something I hold against the OGD. Still:
- FAIL
Other Notes
The OGD talks about being proactive with data release.
The OGD also adds accountability: "Each agency . shall designate a
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open House Project" group.
To post to this group, send email to openhous...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
openhouseproje...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject?hl=en.
Very nice review, but I wouldn't downplay the system of enforcement and
sanctions. For me, this is the achilles heel of open government policies.
They tend to be strong on principles and awful on accountability.
Accountability is not an afterthought. It is essential to ensure that open
government principles don't degenerate into mere PR. Sure, without
meaningful accountability many agencies will still follow and tout the rules
when it is in their self-interest to do so. This may be an improvement over
the status quo, but it will be a far cry from the accountability we are
really seeking.
--Jim
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
-----Original Message-----
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Tauberer
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:50 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [openhouseproject] Open Government Directive - Evaluation
(http://razor.occams.info/blog/2009/12/09/open-government-directive-evaluati
on-on-principles/)
Open Government Directive Evaluation on Principles
Last week I reviewed the House's Statement of Disbursement electronic
Open Government Directive Evaluation on Principles
document along the dimensions of principles of open government data. The
Open Government Directive (OGD) talks about how agencies should go about
the process of opening data. Here is a review of what the OGD says,
organized by open data principle.
I'll put the conclusion up front: The OGD addresses nearly all of the
Open Government Directive (OGD) talks about how agencies should go about
the process of opening data. Here is a review of what the OGD says,
organized by open data principle.
open government data principles that have been put forward, and even
adds two of its own: being pro-active about data release and creating
accountability by designating an official responsible for data quality
(more on these at the end). So from this perspective, the OGD is pretty
spot-on. It is very strong in public input, public review, and
interagency coordination, which are normally the weakest spots of
government data (but, on the other hand, this isn't data, this is a
adds two of its own: being pro-active about data release and creating
accountability by designating an official responsible for data quality
(more on these at the end). So from this perspective, the OGD is pretty
spot-on. It is very strong in public input, public review, and
interagency coordination, which are normally the weakest spots of
goal, so the proof will be in the pudding). It could have been stronger
in the areas of machine processability & promoting analysis, and
explaining what is appropriate for data licensing (ideally, none).
Here are the details:
Information is not meaningfully public if it is not available on the
Internet for free.
The OGD says "each agency shall take prompt steps to expand access to
in the areas of machine processability & promoting analysis, and
explaining what is appropriate for data licensing (ideally, none).
Here are the details:
Information is not meaningfully public if it is not available on the
Internet for free.
information by making it available online in open formats." The OGD
itself doesn't say free, but executive branch policy already requires
that public information not be sold to the public at more than the
marginal cost of distribution - which is about as good as one might
expect. So we'll count this principle as asserted by the OGD.
- GOOD
Data Should Be Primary. Primary data is data as collected at the source,
with the finest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or
modified forms.
says agencies should release data "as granular as possible".
- GOOD
Timely.
The OGD days, "Timely publication of information is an essential
component of transparency. Delays should not be viewed as an inevitable
and insurmountable consequence of high demand."
- GOOD
and insurmountable consequence of high demand."
Accessible. Data are available to the widest range of users for the
widest range of purposes, meaning use an open standard, with a bulk
download, and with documentation.
Machine processable: Data are reasonably structured to allow automated
processing.
directive - as something that is platform independent and machine
readable. Now, here the OGD slips a little because it redefines "open"
but actually leaves out open standards. I don't think that was
intentional, so we'll give the OGD credit for mentioning open standards
even though it didn't exactly. It mentions "downloadable" but not in
bulk, and there is no mention of documentation in the OGD. We can't tell
what the OGD meant by "machine readable" - I think of this term now a
sloppy form of "machine processable". It would have helped if the OGD
specifically noted that the point is to support analysis and reuse of
the data.
I used to use "machine readable" until someone corrected me that really
the data.
any format can be read by a machine. The question is what the machine
can do with it: to what degree can the data be meaningfully processed by
a machine? So now I use machine-processable.
- WEAK
can do with it: to what degree can the data be meaningfully processed by
a machine? So now I use machine-processable.
Non-discriminatory: Data are available to anyone, with no requirement of
registration.
Non-proprietary: Data are available in a format over which no entity has
exclusive control.
License-free. Dissemination of the data is not limited by intellectual
property law or other terms.
restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information." Here we
could have really benefited from some simple but concrete guidance.
- WEAK
Promote analysis: Data published by the government should be in formats
and approaches that promote analysis and reuse of that data.
There is a sense in which this is implicit in the OGD, but maybe it is
the goggles through which I read it. The OGD fails to say explicitly
that analysis is the whole point of open government data.
Public input: The public is in the best position to determine what
information technologies will be best suited for the applications the
public intends to create for itself.
Public review: There should be a means for the public to interact with
the data publisher during and after the data has been made. The public
may have questions or may find errors. The process of creating the data
should also be transparent.
These principles are perhaps the least commonly addressed, and yet it is
one of the most prominent aspects of the OGD. The OGD requires agencies
to allow the public to give feedback on data quality, data
OGD says, "Each agency shall respond to public input received on its
Open Government Webpage on a regular basis."
In addition, the OGD will form a working group (described next) that
will discuss "ideas to promote participation and collaboration,
including how to . take advantage of the expertise and insight of people
both inside and outside the Federal Government, and form high-impact
collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and civil society."
collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and civil society."
In the appendix where it outlines further goals for agencies, the OGD
says, "Your agency should also identify key audiences for its
information and their needs, and endeavor to publish high-value
information for each of those audiences in the most accessible forms and
formats."
- EXCELLENT
information for each of those audiences in the most accessible forms and
formats."
Interagency coordination: Interoperability makes data more valuable by
making it easier to derive new uses from combinations of data. To the
extent two data sets refer to the same kinds of things, the creators of
the data sets should strive to make them interoperable.
The OGD will establish a working group lead by the Deputy Director for
Management at OMB, the Federal Chief Information Officer, and the
Federal Chief Technology Officer to provide a forum to share best
practices for data collection, aggregation, validation, and
dissemination throughout the government, to coordinate implementations
of federal spending transparency, and to provide a forum for sharing
best practices for participation.
Provenance and trust: Published content should be digitally signed or
include attestation of publication/creation date, authenticity, and
integrity.
Permanent Web Address: The file should have a stable location.
Safe file formats: Government bodies publishing data online should
always seek to publish using data formats that do not include executable
content.
Globally Unique Identifiers: This concept, important on the world wide
web, is that any document, resource, data record, or entity mentioned in
a database, or some might say every paragraph in a document, should have
a unique identification that others can use to point to or cite it
elsewhere.
Linked Open Data: This is a method for publishing databases in a
standard format for interconnectivity with other databases without the
expense of wide agreement on unified inter-agency or global data standards.
These get into some of the more precise details of data format. I might
have liked to see provenance & trust addressed, but I am not sure
whether I would really expect these principles to be included in a high
level 120-day plan, at least not at this point. So their absence is not
something I hold against the OGD. Still:
Other Notes
The OGD talks about being proactive with data release.
high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and
objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending
information publicly disseminated."
objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending
information publicly disseminated."
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
--
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open House Project" group.
To post to this group, send email to openhous...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
openhouseproje...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject?hl=en.
Bill Allison
Dec 9, 2009, 10:17:13 AM12/9/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Can I second what Jim says?
In no way is this a slight on the administration's effort, but having
personally dealt on a day-to-day basis with agencies trying to get their
data, and getting all kinds of excuses (including "the database is so
fragile that there's a risk that we'd destroy it if we copied it"--kid
you not), going to court and having a judge order them to release a data
set we'd requested through FOIA only to get an unusable portion of the
records (in other words, the agency defied the court order), etc. etc.,
I think it's critical for the administration to start thinking how
they'll get agencies to comply. Sadly, carrots are never enough--you
need sticks as well.
In no way is this a slight on the administration's effort, but having
personally dealt on a day-to-day basis with agencies trying to get their
data, and getting all kinds of excuses (including "the database is so
fragile that there's a risk that we'd destroy it if we copied it"--kid
you not), going to court and having a judge order them to release a data
set we'd requested through FOIA only to get an unusable portion of the
records (in other words, the agency defied the court order), etc. etc.,
I think it's critical for the administration to start thinking how
they'll get agencies to comply. Sadly, carrots are never enough--you
need sticks as well.
Josh Tauberer
Dec 11, 2009, 7:45:45 AM12/11/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Jim & Bill,
I'm curious how you would have liked to see that included in the OGD.
For reference, here's the part on accountability from the OGD (which is
limited to spending data anyway):
> Within 45 days, each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
> in the areas of machine processability& promoting analysis, and
> have liked to see provenance& trust addressed, but I am not sure
I'm curious how you would have liked to see that included in the OGD.
For reference, here's the part on accountability from the OGD (which is
limited to spending data anyway):
> Within 45 days, each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-
> level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity of, and
> internal controls over, the Federal spending information publicly disseminated
> through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The
> official shall participate in the agency�s Senior Management Council, or similar
> through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The
> governance structure, for the agency-wide internal control assessment pursuant to
> the Federal Managers� Financial Integrity Act.
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
J.H. Snider
Dec 11, 2009, 5:34:57 PM12/11/09
to openhous...@googlegroups.com
Josh, in my experience, even when there are significant monetary penalties for violating open government laws, they may be poorly enforced because it rarely is in anyone's interest to enforce them--even the public's interest. Ignoring the many corrupt and transaction cost reasons for not enforcing such laws, there is also the public interest argument that in fining non-compliers you are really just hurting the taxpayers and the beneficiaries of the agencies' services.
My enforcement plan relies on the court of public opinion as enforced by external disclosure and checks. In my opinion, the emphasis should be on external, not internal, information controls. To the extent that the focus is on internal controls, the emphasis should be shifted to quasi-independent agency actors such as IGs.
--Jim
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
Web: www.isolon.org
-----Original Message-----
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Tauberer
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:46 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [openhouseproject] Open Government Directive - Evaluation
Jim & Bill,
I'm curious how you would have liked to see that included in the OGD.
For reference, here's the part on accountability from the OGD (which is
limited to spending data anyway):
> Within 45 days, each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-
> level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity of, and
> internal controls over, the Federal spending information publicly disseminated
> through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The
> official shall participate in the agency's Senior Management Council, or similar
My enforcement plan relies on the court of public opinion as enforced by external disclosure and checks. In my opinion, the emphasis should be on external, not internal, information controls. To the extent that the focus is on internal controls, the emphasis should be shifted to quasi-independent agency actors such as IGs.
--Jim
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
-----Original Message-----
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Tauberer
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:46 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [openhouseproject] Open Government Directive - Evaluation
Jim & Bill,
I'm curious how you would have liked to see that included in the OGD.
For reference, here's the part on accountability from the OGD (which is
limited to spending data anyway):
> Within 45 days, each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-
> level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity of, and
> internal controls over, the Federal spending information publicly disseminated
> through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites. The
> governance structure, for the agency-wide internal control assessment pursuant to
> the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages