The CDP just received a new endorsement from Open North Inc.

*********************************

The GeoWeb, Citizen Science and Open Data

We are at a confluence. The two related but separate domains of the GeoWeb and Citizen Science are on a collision course with the open data and open government movement.  Lets start with some definitions:

• The GeoWeb, (from Wikipedia) derived as a mash-up from geographic + World Wide Web, creates greater utility of the abstract information made available on the Internet by providing a geographic or location context.  For instance, emitter.ca created greater utility of Environment Canada’s National Pollution Release Inventory by (1) making those data available as a CSV (rather that MS Access) in an open data catalogue (datadotgc.ca), and by (2) mashing the data with a Bing! Map such that the data are searchable by location – by street address or city.
• Citizen Science can be defined as scientific activities in which non-professional scientists volunteer to participate in data collection, analysis and dissemination of a scientific project (from Muki Haklay’s blog). While there are new undertones to this definition, citizen science is an old practice in Canada for the collection of climate and animal data.

To understand this collision course, it is worthwhile to understand the roles that citizens have played in GIS as a precursor to the GeoWeb, as well as with the GeoWeb itself.   

The domain of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) emerged in the 1990s with the widespread adoption of desktop computer systems that lowered barriers through reduced costs and training requirements (Longley, 2011); reduced barriers opened GIS up to more varied practitioners (Sieber, 2006). PPGIS defines a practice where GIS technology and methods are used in support of public participation and decision making in a number of domain applications (Sieber, 2000) ranging from urban planning to public policy development. The explicit desire of PPGIS is the empowerment of less privileged groups (relative to the authority implementing the PPGIS) by including them in an authority led decision processes by improving transparency and access to the input stages of a policy, or similar processes (Schroeder, 1996).

This desire for the empowerment of less privileged groups, coupled with 1990’s desk-top computer technology, defines the PPGIS process as a top down process where a central authority (i.e. government, researcher) identifies a problem, the best way to address the problem, and who can be granted access to the process to achieve the desired outcomes (Carver et. al. 2001).  As such, PPGIS is a multi-dimensional entity whose core components include notions of ‘public’ and ‘participation’, but are poorly defined in the literature. In fact, it is a 1960’s model of Citizen Involvement.  The following is Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Control most often used in the PPGIS literature.

Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Control

It is the notion of Social Computing that sets the GeoWeb and Citizen Science on a collision course.  Social Computing exists in contrast to the closed networks of the PC era, and can be defined as the ability of users to create, interact with and manage an information space that is dynamic, socially collaborative, portable and location sensitive (Parameswaran and Whinston, 2007). Social Computing is the technology that allows us to connect everything to everything (Hudson-Smith, et. al., 2009) in a network whose value increases as its membership increases (Benkler, 2002). As more members and devises connected to the network, the larger the information circle any one individual has.  This, coupled with enhanced communication predicated on mobile devises that can record and transmit spatially and socially relevant data, potentially challenges established power structures and traditional modes of citizen engagement with an authority driven process, such as PPGIS.

Social Computing facilitates a collision between the GeoWeb and Citizen Science by enabling citizens to participate more fully in the scientific process.  Muki Haklay, proposed the levels of Citizen Science found in the Figure below. In this model Level One defines the citizen as a purveyor of volunteered geographic information (VGI) where the citizen provide observations or sensor data to a scientific process.

Levels of Citizen Science from Muki Haklay, 2011

Level Two sees a citizen or a group of citizens act as interpreters of the data; in Level Three a citizen participates with a scientist in the problem definition and defining the data collection plan, and finally; Level Four sees the citizen working in collaboration with the scientist, even parallel to the scientist, where the citizen decides on the problems and methods to achieve a desired outcome.

Integral to this process is the fate of the data that citizen scientists provide to a process.  My next post in this series will develop these ideas further and provide some examples of Citizen Science in action, including an air quality monitoring pilot project in development in Edmonton.

References:

Arnstein, S. R.,  A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4):216– 224, 1969.

Benkler Y. Coase’s penguin, or, linux and the nature of the firm. 2002.

Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston R., and Turton, I.. Public participation, gis, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environ. Plann. B, 28(6):907–921, Jan 2001.

Hudson-Smith, A., Crooks A., Gibin M., Milton R., and Batty M. Neogeography and web 2.0: concepts, tools and applications. Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2):118–145, Jun 2009.

Longley, P. Geographic Information Systems and Science. Wiley, 3rd edition, 2011.

Parameswaran, M. and Whinston, A. B. Social computing: An overview. Communications of the Asso- ciation for Information Systems, pages 762–780, 2007.

Schroeder, P. Criteria for the design of a gis/2., 1996. 

Sieber, R. GIS implementation in grassroots organizations. Urban and Information Systems Association Journal, 12(1):15–29, 2000.

Sieber, R. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 96(3):491–507, 2006.

This is where ‘real’ transparency needs to occur, otherwise what is the point of a democracy when telling the truth is a carreer limiting move.  I do not want to live in a culture of yes people, divergent views is where we learn, test and re-evaluate.

Thanks to the resignation of the chief economic analyst at StatCan, at least we now know why non custom and non small geography national household survey data will be free – it ain’t good data! Sor much for open data!

Open data includes access to good data, and transparency means more than the disclosure section on a government website.  It is also interesting
that the 10 principles of open data all us open data enthusiasts quote do not include a principle on ’quality, reliable, accurate and authentic data’.  I think it is time for a new principle and for some government principles.

We know that Philip Cross adheres to and understands both and it is a shame that good and smart people have to resign for us to hear what is really going on.  I want a government full of smart people doing the right thing according to their mandates and the ethical standards of their professions and disciplines.  To me that is just plain part of good governance.  Othewise, how can we trust what the government produces.  Honestly, I do not want to distrust the Canadian government, I live in Ottawa and I know lots of good people with integrity who are the best we can ask for in a public servant, unfortunately for them, the climate they are working in is testing their resolve, and people are keeping their heads low.

My faith in government keeps being tested these days and I fear that this new culture of yes people will be the new norm, which may perpetuate mediocrity and ill informed decision-making, which is unfortunate for us all as we have a great country, and it would be great if it could be governed by great people who can take us to greater and better heights, instead of great people who cannot tell the truth and by not doing so mislead us all.

Globe and Mail Article: Statscan’s chief economic analyst quits

1. CIPPIC Submission: CIPPIC Participates in the Open Government Consultation
2. CPScpsrenewal (Nick Charney): Submission
3. Mike Kujawsky: Submission
4. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (Heather Morrison): Submission
5. datalibre.ca (Tracey Lauriault): Response
6. David Eaves: Submission
7. Herb Lainchbury: Submission
8. BC Fredom of Information and Privacy Association: Submission

Aggregation of tweets from the Open Government Twitter town hall:

1. thumbtackhead.ca 
2. Science Library Pad (Richard Ackerman): Canadian #opengovchat – archives & hackfests

Each government department, crown corporation and agency should have a chief data officer (CDO) responsible for implementing opendata and opengovernment policies.  CDOs would be the institution’s data subject matter specialist, answer to the public and government.  CDOs would conduct an inventory of their data and information assets and these would be catalogued in a portal linked from their home pages but structured to also be federated into an opendata portal (ODESI).

Data catalogs would provide multiple ways to find data (Discovery Portal) and point to existing non-government initiatives (WEHUB, Community Data Program) as these are established communities of practice.  Building on best practices and existing models is efficient and interoperability should be the focus instead of homogenous data dissemination models.

Policies and practices should be developed in consultation with the nation’s experts (librarians, archivists, scientists, geomaticians), knowledgeable citizens and opendata advocates. Users should also be consulted and different data dissemination models may be needed for different levels of users.  Also, it is a good idea to build on already completed government consultations: Research Data Canada Consultation , Library and Archives Canada and Industry Canada.  There is also benefit in enlisting multiple sectors and not just the opendata consitutuents such as: Canadian Council on Social Development & community groups, Federation of Canadian Municipalities & cities, Publich Health Agency of Canada & health agencies, HRSDC & social sector, Open Data Cities, etc.

Government funding should mandate that the results of all publicly funded research be deposited into a trusted digital repository (TDR), in a data archive or portals (International Polar Year project & CIHR Open Access Policy).  Other areas of research focus could be data visualization products, building data use capacity, and understanding evidence based public participation.  Developing best practices for government to incorporate volunteered geographic information, citizen science and indigenous knowledge should be also be encouraged.

All agencies should be implementing TBS record’s management policies and its directives while also depositing their data and publications in the Depository Service Program (DSP) and Library and Archives Canada (LAC).  LAC & the DSP should be funded to develop a data archive as Canadians currently rely on the US funded and based Internet Archive.  Research libraries should continue to develop distributed publicly accessible TDRs, cloud computing and broadband infrastructure to carry out their work.

Data should be aggregated into geographic units of utility to a variety communities, framework geography files (Geobase) and should be made available and data conversion services provided (GeoConnections):

• StatCan DA, CT, CD, CSD, CMA
• Health Districts & Sub Districts
• City wards and neighbouhoods
• Rural & Postal geos
• Provinces, Territories & districts

Government should be engaged in creating ways to visualize data and provide some analysis. The Atlas of Canada could be the map window for data, each department could have a section devoted to their respective areas providing educators and the public with a trusted and authoritative reference in addition it would be a window into the geography of government policy.  Each agency could be assisted with the creation of infographics and apps to communicate programs and services by involving the public, private sector and universities and funding this would help grow a cadre of Canadian experts.  Research funds and CFPs would help produce tools (Many Eyes), apps (Budget Plateau), visual communication system (cybercartography) and social media processes. Transdisciplinary research can help develop the theory and practice of data communication while open tender can resolve specific data dissemination issues, develop relevant products and services.

Cost recovery should also be abolished and data procurement processes would also have to be evaluated ensure that government purchased data can be made available to the public.

2. What types of open data sets would be of interest to you? Please pick up to three categories below and specify what data would be of interest to you.

Other: See response to 1. & include all government deparment, crown corporations and agency program, administrative, research data including their related information products.

3. How would you use or manipulate this data?

I will provide a list of examples of government, communicy and citizen science data put to work:

- Atlas of the Risk of Homelessness
- WEHUB (Water and Environmental Hub)
- Revealing Economic Networks
- Portrait des communautés de l’outaouais
- BC Hydraulic Registry
- Evidence Based Decision-Making
- Funding -
- Open Data for the Oil and Gas
- Social Justice Reporting
- Inuit Sea Ice Use and Occupancy Project (ISIUOP)
- Atlases
- Espace Montréalais d”information sur la Santé
- Community View Collaboration
- Community Information and Mapping System (CIMS)
- Social Planning Council of Ottawa Data and Information Reporting
- Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Poverty Profiles
- Report Cards on Children’s Well Being
- Social Planning Council of Hamilton Reports
- Community Development Halton – Community Lens
- Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre information products
- Electoral accountability – How’d They Vote? – , for youth  and many others
- Citizen Science -  Birders and Water
- Environmental Conservation – Waterly
- Participatory Planning
- Environmental Accountability
- Ecological Footprint
- Participatory Budgets
- APPS
- Citizen engagement -
- Lovely visualizations

4. What could be done to make it easier for you to find government information online?

See response to question 1. and 3.

The data and information discussed in this question, including FOI request results can also be disseminated in portals and be catalogued as was done with CAIRS.

The creation of suitable ways to communicate and visualize those data would greatly enhance information usability and information uptake.

Supporting Canadian entrepreneurs and researchers to develop tools (aka apps) to interact with and visualize these data and making those tools, apps and dbases available to the public would be beneficial (e.g. How’d they Vote or BudgetPlateau).

Fund data visualization in Canada and research into the use of data and public engagement.

5. Of the items below, which are the priority areas of information that you would like to see released on government websites:

Other, All of the above, essentially, all public sector information and data that are not private, that inform programs or that are collected as part of the governing process

6. In the past five years, have you participated in any Government of Canada consultations with Canadians?

Yes

Overall, how easy or difficult was it to: (very easy to very difficult or n/a)

• Find out about Government of Canada consultations?
• easy
• Participate in Government of Canada consultations?
• Somewhat easy but too constrained by format and pre-prescribed questions.
• Use social media/Web 2.0 tools to participate and provide your input?
• Easy, however, well facilitated round tables and face to face consultations with specialist communities are also important.
• Obtain information about the outcome of the consultation you participated in?
• Very difficult, there is rarely follow through.

7. Do you have suggestions on how the Government of Canada could improve how it consults with Canadians?

National round tables and outreach to specialist communities would be a start (e.g., health, social policy, science, industry, etc.), not just via social media but the actual organizing of face to face meetings that are well facilitated.  The National Research Council in the US does this (e.g. Cyberinfrastructure, Policy and Science or Transportation) and makes available the results in the National Academies Press.  The US NRC gathers experts to define problem areas or forecast needs (e.g., Cyberinfrastructure), collaborate to develop solutions and then the Council actually develops CFPs to implement proposed solutions.  We could actually mobilize the nation’s experts in Canada, not just the nation’s consulting firms to help develop creative solutions.

GeoConnections, StatCan, Library Archives Canada and The National Research Council of Canada have had experience conducting public consultations, round tables and summits with data users, producers, managers and specialist communities.

Those engaged with public participation researcher have expertise here, as do those engaged in action research or public participation GIS.  Organizations that have developed ChangeCamps, GovCamps, hackfests and citizen city open data communities are another groups that have experience and proven expertise in carrying out creative consultations.

Some tables already exists such as Community Data Canada  and the Community Data Program on the social sector side, the FCM for Cities, Open North  for open data advocates and entrepreneurs, city Open Data Groups, CODATA in Science and numerous academic and professional associations such as IASSIST, ACMLA, CAPDU, CARL, as well as subject matter specialists in demographics, public health, community informatics, etc. There are also a number of important lists such as civicaccess.ca where various communities of interest are engaged and intersect.

It is important to work with data specialists, engineers, scientists, apps developers and it is equally important to outreach with heavy data and information users such as journalists, researchers, consulting firms, utilities, community organizations and cities to understand their needs.  Conducting user needs analyses is another useful way to engage with people.

8. Are there approaches used by other governments that you believe the Government of Canada could/should model?

See response to 7, and 1.

9. Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make pertaining to the Government of Canada’s Open Government initiative?

An open government initiative needs policy and directives to ensure, guide and involve the governors and bureaucrats.  Open government also requires cultural change and it also means that the government will need to welcome citizen participation and govern based on evidence from within government and based on the work done by citizens.  It is not suitable to open government and share data and then cut funding in research, libraries, archives, think tanks or the census.  Open government means nurturing and growing a multifaceted knowledge industry and volunteer sector on topics ranging from spending, women, poverty to infrastructure and government administration.  It also means welcoming informed results irrespective of their alignment with the ideologies of the government of the day.

The culture of secrecy regarding submissions to cabinet, MOUs, and so on should also be reconsidered as the public has a right to know upon what government is basing its decisions.  The Government of Canada already has excellent regulation, directives and policies regarding access to information, records management and archiving, and these need to be funded and actually implemented.  These should not be circumvented as seen in the case of the gun registry bill where there was a clause precluding archiving and preservation of the data it contained.  That makes for inconsistent policy.  Government should also be at arm’s length from its data gathering agencies such as Statistics Canada, the cancellation of the Census has garnered much public distrust and also puts in question the impartiality of the data, the recommendations of the National Statistical Council on this matter should be implemented.  Organizational and cultural change is also required, and we should allow our expert public servants to speak freely and authoritatively and not quash their views even if not in accordance to a minister’s preferences, (e.g., scientists).  Communication’s departments should be facilitating communication and not controlling it nor be the source of wisdom and knowledge about government work.  Also, consultation needs follow through, otherwise it is wasted effort and we should be building upon the results of previous consultations and not continuously reinventing the wheel.  Consultations should also include some sort of benchmark system to assess whether or not government is actually following through on its policies.  A brief examination of departments and their data preservation practices will demonstrate that in fact most departments are not, cannot and will not meet directive requirements on records management and preservation policies.  What is the point of policy and directives if not implemented!

Open government is more than a portal, as the Information Commissioner’s Resolutions have clearly stated, it is also about changing the way work is done and being more responsive to citizen input, more welcoming of divergent and conflicting views and includes greater, deeper, real and more meaningful public engagement.

10. How would you like to stay connected to Canada’s Open Government initiative?

• Web updates (email alerts)
• Public Consultation

Thanks to James for helping me find lost responses!

Many efforts to open up public data stores are oriented to the noble but somewhat non-specific goal of more open and transparent public governance.  Intellog Inc., founded in  2008, has a different objective; to use public data as a substrate for building a profit-oriented, job-creating, taxpaying business.  With over three years of experience under our belt, we now wonder if it would have been easier to choose a more conventional path.  Here’s the cautionary tale.

Intellog’s primary business objective is to bring the current generation of Internet technologies to the oil and gas business.  Our first project was to address a surprising lack of a robust, open and systematic way of identifying petroleum wells in the Western Sedimentary Basin.  The solution seemed obvious, so we were surprised when we discovered putting together such a list had not been undertaken to that point.  Our subsequent experience with provincial regulatory agencies — the current stewards of this data — eventually provided us with the reason why.  Saskatchewan is superbly well organized, helpful and knowledgeable staff.  Alberta is at the opposite end of the spectrum, cursed with a toxic combination of creaking, antiquated systems and intransigent leadership. The other jurisdictions fall somewhere in between but are generally pretty good.

In short, nearly four years later, we still don’t have standardized, open well identification to support the development of innovative, revenue-generating applications. We continue to pursue access to the requisite data through the Freedom of Information process which is now due to conclude in March, 2012 — nearly four-and-a-half years since we started down this path. In the interim, the closest we have come is three, competing proprietary datasets owned by private companies, one of which is US-based.  These companies are at liberty to pick and choose their partners and have therefore become the unaccountable, de-facto regulators of innovation.  Want to build the next great application for the oil & gas industry?  Be prepared to make some sort of deal with one of the three incumbent data vendors, and have your cheque book ready. In reality, this first obstacle proves fatal for virtually all start-ups.

Secondly, the inherent ‘goodness’ of open data and the positive light in which it is typically viewed doesn’t substitute for a marketing strategy and creating products your prospective customers want to buy.  There is no such thing as a principled purchase — buying happens when product capability meets excruciating business pain and sometimes not even then.  When we rolled out some initial portions of the open well data, you could have heard a pin drop — our prospects simply did not care, because it did not solve a problem they perceived they had.  Oil & gas companies, particularly publicly traded ones, think in fiscal quarters, so if open data and the applications that use it don’t return measurable value in the very short term, they’ll sit on the shelf unloved and ignored.

Finally, the same reasons which motivate us to use open data, tend also to motivate the use of open source software.  Our experience over the past few years indicates that open source alternatives to commercial products are, without exception, as good and in most cases better than their proprietary equivalents.  Support, albeit of the self-serve variety, is also better, with mainstream open source projects surrounded by enthusiastic and helpful communities.  But we weren’t prepared for the objection along the lines of “we are a .NET/Oracle/etc. (or whatever) shop” being a reason for passing on our product offerings. And yet sometimes that seems to be the case.

The main lesson hard won over the last three years is that a successful venture is built on “customers first, everything else tied for last”.  Building great products and providing outstanding customer support — using whatever set of tools — will eventually get you the  success you want and deserve.  Open source data and development tools can keep costs down and have other attendant benefits, but they are not an end unto themselves.

Bio: Terence Gannon, Founder and President at Intellog Inc. launched his first start-up in the early 1980’s, bringing two word processing programs to the nascent personal computer market. He has since served stints at North Canadian Oils, Norcen, Sceptre Resources, Canadian Fracmaster and Trican Well Services, where he pioneered the use of ultralight business process management tools to increase productivity, and reduce missed or duplicated work. In 2008, Gannon launched Intellog Inc. with the mandate of bringing current generation web-based applications and data integration tools to the oil and gas industry. He regularly campaigns for the petroleum industry to open up its public data stores to be free and widely available to all stakeholders.

B E T W E E N:
CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
COMMUNITY SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF TORONTO,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HALTON,
CANADIAN ARAB FEDERATION,
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF AGENCIES SERVING IMMIGRANTS,
COUNCIL OF AGENCIES SERVING SOUTH ASIANS,
CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION – TORONTO,
AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC,
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION,
SOUTH ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC OF ONTARIO,
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF WINNIPEG,
METRO TORONTO CHINESE & SOUTHEST ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC
Applicants

-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW
(Vol. V of V)
Memorandum of Fact and Law
_____________________________________________________________________
Paul Champ/Anne Levesque
Champ and Associates
43 Florence Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0W6
T: (613) 237-4740
F: (613) 232-2680