eaves.ca: Vancouver enters the age of the open city
Todd Sieling
· 7 months ago
This is fantastic news, David. With Translink also opening up a little bit at a time, we're seeing some really great possibilities emerge here. Thanks for your work on the initiative and for breaking the news here.
David Eaves
· 7 months ago
Todd - agreed. There is also some promising movement at the provincial level with the work David Hume is doing in opening up their data. Our goal - how do we become the most open mega-region (as Richard Florida would call it) in the world. Translink (the organization that runs transit services in the Greater Vancouver Area) is an obvious piece of the puzzle and I think they are starting to get it - they've come a long way, very promising.
kferaday
· 7 months ago
It sounds great. I hate to be a skeptic but has the problem of data integration/data quality etc. been addressed? This could be a very expensive undertaking. The same as you move from legacy to open source -- there's a data migration issue here. Given how cash poor most municipalities it will be interesting to see how quickly this moves forward from paper to reality.
Todd Sieling
· 7 months ago
Data migration from legacy presents issues as a natural part of IT evolution, whether moving to more open formats or not, but the point is well taken. One thing that municipalities can look towards in thinking about this is the cost savings associated with going open. A few ways costs are reduced: * licensing costs are typically much lower * open data allows others to build the applications that municipalities can't take on, which in turn leads to more uses and users of that data. When there's proof of a decent portion of citizens taking advantage of open data, it's easier to get resources for doing more. It just takes the vision to make those first steps.
It *could* be an expensive undertaking, and it *could* not be. Translink opened up (some?) of its data and Google consumes it to provide transit info through its maps application. The costs to Translink were likely more to do with their own internal processes and *cough* red tape, and not in making the data usable.
kferaday
· 7 months ago
Todd, Sure costs can be lower once you go through the process of analyzing data, standardizing and consolidating it. I'm with you there. And depending on the types of data your talking about you have to worry about privacy and security issues. But once you get it there I completely agree that it's the way to go. I just wouldn't want anyone to understate the potential complexities involved in making the transition. For example, I took a quick look at Freebase (Jim Pick mentions it below). If you're loading more than 1000 records into Freebase there's a data analysis/mapping... that has to go on with their team to get it into Freebase which makes sense.
The point I was trying to make is that it's going to be a lot more complex than a simple declaration. There has to be real $$$ behind the initiative. Given how cash poor most municipalities are I wonder how quickly this will be able to be undertaken.
David Ascher
· 7 months ago
Really cool. Next up: getting at least transparency, and maybe openness, on the school board.
Jim Pick
· 7 months ago
This is awesome!
I've been trying to build up some mashup / semantic web connective tissue over at http://vancouver.freebase.com/ - there are quite a few city data sources I'd like to see opened up.
I may even attend the council meeting in person to see what the reception is like...
David Eaves
· 7 months ago
Jim - this is exactly the type of work that we want to come out of this initiative. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Please keep me posted on your progress and how I can help. Please do come to council and even consider writing a letter and/or speaking in favour of the motion.
Jan Karlsbjerg
· 7 months ago
Will it be in effect once read out loud? Or will there be a vote? Will it pass?
Jeroen de Miranda
· 7 months ago
great initiative! In the Netherlands we are looking for similar solutions, see some discussions on http://ambtenaar20.ning.com (in Dutch)
thermistor
· 7 months ago
Yeah hopefully it will pass! I will write an email expressing my support.
kareem
· 7 months ago
this is fantastic, david. i may attend the council meeting on tues! :)
Mike T
· 7 months ago
So like VanMap (http://vancouver.ca/VanMap/) but better and more useful?! VanMap is only useful in isolation and in an IE browser. This kind of initiative would hopefully allow WFS/WMS services to obtain similar data for CAD/GIS folk that work in Vancouver.
Joe Germuska
· 7 months ago
This is really great. I'm envious. I live in a city (Chicago) where I'm not so certain that we'll get this kind of adoption any time soon, but we've started a meetup in hopes of getting our city to think like the web as well.
At this time, there are three cities (NYC, Chicago, and Melbourne) which have groups like this through Meetup.com: http://open-government.meetup.com/ I'm definitely looking for forums/mailing lists/discussion groups where we can share ideas with people working on these kinds of projects in other cities -- I hope to see more posts at http://thinkliketheweb.org/ too!
Congratulations!
Torsten
· 7 months ago
This is awesome news! :)
Just one small hint about this paragraph: "Open Source Software - the City of Vancouver, when replacing existing software or considering new applications, will place open source software on an equal footing with commercial systems during procurement cycles;"
The opposite of Free (Open Source) Software is not commercial software. Free software can be and often is commercial. Maybe better use a sentence like "on an equal footing with proprietary systems" or "on an equal footing with non-free systems".
Thanks for the great work!
David Eaves
· 7 months ago
Torsten - Thank you for this suggestion. I'm creating an open source, non-Vancouver specific version of the motion so this is helpful.
R Knight
· 7 months ago
I think this is a great and a long overdue resolution/initiative but ... It is unfortunate Integrated Cadastral Information Society (ICIS) is specifically named in this resolution. If I were a councilor in Vancouver I would not support this resolution until it is amended to remove specific mention of ICIS. ICIS is a lopsided partnership and there is good reason to carefully examine the fine print before signing their "data sharing" agreement. R Knight
David Eaves
· 7 months ago
R Knight - thank you for the comment. I'd love to hear more about your concerns. Please do email me or post here in the comment section. What specifically is it about the ICIS terms that concern you?
ars
· 7 months ago
I have to agree with Mr. Knight on some of his points. ICIS is the 800 Pound Gorilla in the room and the fine print in their agreement can be very binding. In my opinion, the expect a lot and offer little in the way of data sharing. I believe they cater to certain consumers of data and aren't too friendly to producers.
I think I can read between the lines with the statement: "Develop appropriate agreements to share its data with the Integrated Cadastral Information Society (ICIS) and encourage the ICIS to in turn share its data with the public at large ", and I think they have to cover the bases in mentioning ICIS (see 800 pound gorilla). In discussions with some CoV staff, they don't see much benefit in signing "the agreement" with ICIS, but I believe are more than willing to share what they have on their own terms. I can't say I can argue with that.
Audrey
· 7 months ago
2 corrections they made in council today * which 88% of BC local governments are members but Vancouver is not; * WHEREAS the City of Vancouver has incredible resources of data and information, and has recently been recognized as one of the Best City Archives in the World by a noted scholar in an important journal.
What happened with this motion. I tried to go through the City Clerk's minutes, but I can't tell if they passed this or not?
David Eaves
· 7 months ago
Robert - good question! The motion was passed, unammended, on Thursday.
Robert
· 7 months ago
Thank-you! BTW: I'm with the City of Ottawa and we're currently reviewing our Data Dissemination policy based on a motion from council several months ago. Toronto is also working on their toronto.ca/open website, so it seems that a trend has started. We'll see who's first up and running.
All Comments
Translink (the organization that runs transit services in the Greater Vancouver Area) is an obvious piece of the puzzle and I think they are starting to get it - they've come a long way, very promising.
* licensing costs are typically much lower
* open data allows others to build the applications that municipalities can't take on, which in turn leads to more uses and users of that data. When there's proof of a decent portion of citizens taking advantage of open data, it's easier to get resources for doing more. It just takes the vision to make those first steps.
It *could* be an expensive undertaking, and it *could* not be. Translink opened up (some?) of its data and Google consumes it to provide transit info through its maps application. The costs to Translink were likely more to do with their own internal processes and *cough* red tape, and not in making the data usable.
Sure costs can be lower once you go through the process of analyzing data, standardizing and consolidating it. I'm with you there. And depending on the types of data your talking about you have to worry about privacy and security issues. But once you get it there I completely agree that it's the way to go. I just wouldn't want anyone to understate the potential complexities involved in making the transition. For example, I took a quick look at Freebase (Jim Pick mentions it below). If you're loading more than 1000 records into Freebase there's a data analysis/mapping... that has to go on with their team to get it into Freebase which makes sense.
The point I was trying to make is that it's going to be a lot more complex than a simple declaration. There has to be real $$$ behind the initiative. Given how cash poor most municipalities are I wonder how quickly this will be able to be undertaken.
I've been trying to build up some mashup / semantic web connective tissue over at http://vancouver.freebase.com/ - there are quite a few city data sources I'd like to see opened up.
I may even attend the council meeting in person to see what the reception is like...
Please do come to council and even consider writing a letter and/or speaking in favour of the motion.
At this time, there are three cities (NYC, Chicago, and Melbourne) which have groups like this through Meetup.com: http://open-government.meetup.com/ I'm definitely looking for forums/mailing lists/discussion groups where we can share ideas with people working on these kinds of projects in other cities -- I hope to see more posts at http://thinkliketheweb.org/ too!
Congratulations!
Just one small hint about this paragraph:
"Open Source Software - the City of Vancouver, when replacing existing software or considering new applications, will place open source software on an equal footing with commercial systems during procurement cycles;"
The opposite of Free (Open Source) Software is not commercial software. Free software can be and often is commercial. Maybe better use a sentence like "on an equal footing with proprietary systems" or "on an equal footing with non-free systems".
Thanks for the great work!
It is unfortunate Integrated Cadastral Information Society (ICIS) is specifically named in this resolution. If I were a councilor in Vancouver I would not support this resolution until it is amended to remove specific mention of ICIS. ICIS is a lopsided partnership and there is good reason to carefully examine the fine print before signing their "data sharing" agreement.
R Knight
I think I can read between the lines with the statement: "Develop appropriate agreements to share its data with the Integrated Cadastral Information Society (ICIS) and encourage the ICIS to in turn share its data with the public at large ", and I think they have to cover the bases in mentioning ICIS (see 800 pound gorilla). In discussions with some CoV staff, they don't see much benefit in signing "the agreement" with ICIS, but I believe are more than willing to share what they have on their own terms. I can't say I can argue with that.
* which 88% of BC local governments are members but Vancouver is not;
* WHEREAS the City of Vancouver has incredible resources of data and information, and has recently been recognized as one of the Best City Archives in the World by a noted scholar in an important journal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX0y-GsBTO8
Also check out usa.gov's data catalog http://www.data.gov/ and DC's catalog http://data.octo.dc.gov/