On 07/09/2011 11:07, Francis Irving wrote:
Back in January the Public Data Corporation was announced.
Mark Goodge and Tom Steinberg gave trenchant analyses on this list:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developers-public/2011-January/007119.html
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developers-public/2011-January/007122.html
Today, Michael Cross writes in the Telegraph, implying that we know a
lot more about the PDC now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8742476/Public-data-Government-should-get-out-of-the-way-of-innovation.html
What's the list's view now? How did the "finely balanced" fight go?
I think this paragraph is the key one:
"The idea seems to be that the PDC will take over the trading activities
of the Land Registry, the Met Office and Ordnance Survey, pumping out
two types of product. The first will be “public task” raw data,
available free on an open licence. The second will be value-added
products, chargeable to users. The consultation seems to lean towards a
“freemium” business model, where users get a “lite” version for free,
but have to buy a licence when they want more data volume, features, or
usage."
From an open data perspective, what matters here is the raw data.
"Value added" packages are nice for end users, but the developer
community needs raw data, and needs it under a licence that allows them
to create their own value added services to meet the needs of those who
aren't provided for by the official versions.
That being the case, the real weasel words here are the definition of
"public task". Does that mean we'll only get the data which the PDC, in
its infinite wisdom, decides is suited to public release, or does it
mean that raw data is, by definition, considered "public task"?
If the latter, then that's fine by me, and I really don't have a problem
(unlike Michael Cross, it seems) with the PDC also packaging the raw
data for sale as a value added product. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that there are still some things for which an "official" premium product
is desirable. For things which have legal implications, for example, the
needs of non-technical end users (ie, those who cannot process the raw
data themselves) are best met by a product of guaranteed reliability
from a government source rather than possibly inaccurate independent
sources - just because anyone can take the raw data and package it for
end-user consumption doesn't mean that they'll all do so equally well!
Provided the raw data is freely available, therefore, I'm not concerned
with what the PDC's commercial arm does with it.
If, on the other hand, the government is planning to let the PDC itself
decide which raw datasets qualify as "public" rather than making them
public by default, then there's clearly a conflict of interest here
which is very likely to be detrimental to the developer community.
That's an issue which needs to be addressed, and I'd really like to know
more about what the current thinking is in that respect.
Mark
--
Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
http://www.ratemysupermarket.com
_______________________________________________
developers-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
Unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
