Andrea DiMaio made some interesting observations as agencies posted raw data last week to data.gov including that “there is no explanation of what makes certain data sets high-value.” “The second interesting aspect is that no ‘tool’ has been submitted in this round. Data.gov ‘tools’ are agency tools or web pages that can be used to mine data sets. Clearly, as the Directive asked for raw data, this is what Data.gov got. But the submission of some extra tools would have helped determine an agency’s view about the value of that data and would provide some starting point to figure out what to do with that data.”
While three high-value data sets were required by the Open Government Directive, among the agencies there is quite a bit of variation in the number of data sets posted and how many of them are designated high-value.
What are your first impressions of the data sets submitted by the agencies?
I guess you could say, “It’s a start.” It is important as a first step that agencies begin acclimating to producing and posting data in open formats. That’s all good. Now we have to step back, look at what we’ve got, and identify what’s working and what’s not. An obvious issue is the lack of reporting standards. For instance, a number of agencies (DOJ, SSA, BBG) have posted data regarding 2008 FOIA requests. However, they are all reported in different formats, which undermines the ability to correlate data between data sets, etc.
Good start, but only that – a start.
Doug Ward
http://www.opengovblog.us