Evaluating /Open pages
- Written by
- Clay Johnson
- Date
- 01/19/2010 12:11 p.m.
Right now, we're focused on one thing: watching agencies put up their /Open page. We built a little tool that allows us to check in with each agency daily and notify us when it is up. When we put it up, agencies like the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture quickly put up placeholder pages to get a green check-box next to their name. Silly.
The point of the Open Tracker not to evaluate, it's to let us know when we can start evaluating and to encourage federal agencies to meet the deadline they're directed to meet. Today, I'm happy to say the Department of Labor can rightfully claim they're the first to launch a /open page 18 days ahead of schedule. It meets a basic criteria: publish some data, allow people to submit feedback, and is acknowledges the intent of the open government directive.
Now, that's not to say it's complete: far from it. 2 out of 3 of the "datasets" aren't datasets at all-- they're documents. One of them is a tough-to-parse PDF file, and the other is a 38 page document with a 137 page bibliography. And I'm not sure how they measure up to the Open Government Directive's definition of high-value. But that's not what's important right now. What's important is, they've taken their first stab-- a first draft of something that will take years to get right. Once the deadline is passed, then it'll be time to start providing hard critiques.
We've been hard at work figuring out how to evaluate the datasets agencies are providing. So far we have a draft of a score-card that we've used as a hand-out to various agencies. It's based on the 8 Principles of Government Data though we've added a 9th (permanence). Here's our scorecard so far-- would love your input on them:
These are, as I said, a draft-- and open to your input.
We should see lots of green checks in the next 2 weeks as the /Open page deadline comes closer. Once that happens, we'll start evaluating each Agency on its performance and make some clear recommendations on how to make these datasets not only available but also useful.
Discussion
What are Your Thoughts?
Comments have been closed on this post.
Thanks for noticing! We are well aware that this is very much a work in progress and look forward to engaging the public in helping to make the page as useful as possible.
While certainly not ideal, the 2 PDFs from the "Featured Data Sets" section are currently some of the most requested/popular items, so we wanted to make them easier to get to. Look for many additional data sets coming online this week and beyond.
Thanks for sharing the "Principles" chart, that will be very useful as we move forward.
Clay,
You say:
2 out of 3 of the "datasets" aren't datasets at all-- they're documents. One of them is a tough-to-parse PDF file, and the other is a 38 page document with a 137 page bibliography. And I'm not sure how they measure up to the Open Government Directive's definition of high-value.
I say:
Yes, it can be hard for those without government experience to understand the bureaucratese in government documents (e.g., "high-value dataset").
But it can be quite simple to translate into plain-English .. if you remember to use THEIR definition (not yours).
For example, go back and check the OGD's definition (on the link that you provided) for "high-value data", and then answer this question:
Has the DOL released "information that can be used to .. improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations"?
The answer is "Yes".
And even though one could argue that "data" is not strictly the same as "information", the language in the OGD implies that OMB wants the public to get better information, without specifying whether that "data" is in raw or refined form.
I've had many years of federal experience in Guidance & Compliance. If a federal agency follows instructions properly, then they are in compliance.
And if OMB wants them to do more than what the OGD says, then OMB needs to revise it. Otherwise, trying to cajole federal agencies to do more than they have been instructed (i.e., "wouldn't it be nice if ...") shows a lack of understanding in government program implementation.