 |
 |
Key questions, but I think to look at the value proposition of this data you need to look at the value proposition of open data in general (this is supposed to be the ‘basic’ first stage). And I'd be repeating better material available online: Open Knowledge Foundation - Why open data? (https://okfn.org/opendata/why-open-data/) Open Data Institute - Case Studies (https://theodi.org/case-studies) Open Data Institute - How to make a business case for open data (http://theodi.org/guides/how-make-business-case-open-data) UK Government Open Data White Paper 2012 (https://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Open_data_White_Paper.pdf) You can spend longer assessing the cost/benefit ratio of every dataset than it would take to publish them. The reason for linking to policy was to provide context that this is a requirement, not just something to be debated. That doesn't mean doing it without question, but it's a little like questioning whether this whole lending books idea is good value for money. It seems odd to have conversations justifying open data to the library profession. (Not a reflection on yourself Ken - you're clearly experienced in the concerns of service managers, a devil's advocate expert, plus open data legend through the LibTech work). It would be silly to start pushing out data just because someone on a tl;dr email said it was simple, or because it was in some high level policy guide somewhere. Individual services could engage with local open data communities (some library services are already). Many local authorities will already have open data policies, with expert staff who could definitely benefit from some information professional skills. And there will be open data portals that can be made use of. As to the galvanising force, I think trying to encourage the above is a better long-term option than a time-limited political body trying to release the data and then disappointing everyone cos Rob or Theresa didn't like it. If the Taskforce next steps are to propose a set of common datasets and encourage individual services to take responsibility for open data, as well as guidelines and technicalities for going about it, that would seem to be a good thing. Dave Tw: @librarieshacked Web: https://england.librarydata.uk https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join From: Ken Chad Sent: 01 April 2017 11:46 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Disappointment over 'basic' Taskforce dataset | The Bookseller Dave, I think you get right to the heart of it when you say: "The task is to update it at all". There needs to be a motivation or to put it another way what is the value proposition of this data set? What problems does it solve? Who benefits? Is the benefit worth the effort? In my experience of open platforms like Local Government Library Tech (LGLibTech) which is very openly licensed you still need a galvanising force to get the data. Maybe that is the task force? Ken Tel: +44 (0)7788727845 Email: [log in to unmask] www.kenchadconsulting.com On 1 Apr 2017, at 08:38, Libraries Hacked <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Good to see practical suggestions for this. There are many platforms for storing data and making it accessible. The OCLC registry thingy possibly isn't suitable because it doesn't seem to support open data. The data would have to be made available under an open licence (e.g. the open government licence). The current terms and conditions don't seem to support that. Libraries are already proficient in submitting public data to third parties, who block that date being made open, so it may be worth avoiding another. Of course the point about joining up the process of publishing to these places is very sensible. Perhaps with a well-maintained open data repository the OCLC would be interested in pulling that data in to their registry. Ultimately though, the platform is not the issue. This is about data management and an open data culture. If people can update data on OCLC they can update it on an open data portal. The task is to update it at all. For local government, the local government transparency code (http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/local-transparency/-/journal_content/56/10180/3825810/ARTICLE) sets out instructions for publishing data: "all data held and managed by local authorities should be made open and available to local people unless there are specific sensitivities to doing so." 'Specific sensitivities' could be used in a wide set of excuses, but I believe it's more reasonably used for sensitivities such as personal data or security risks: "Local authorities should start from the presumption of openness and disclosure of information, and not rely on exemptions to withhold information unless absolutely necessary." For all its flaws and ultimate failure in this particular task, the Taskforce have pushed libraries to publish open data, and initiated conversations about the data held by libraries. But this is not the responsibility of the Taskforce, this is the role of everyone who works in local government. The failure of this particular dataset is very sad :-( but blaming the Taskforce seems a little easy. Why did the authorities not make their library returns open when they completed them? Even if the process of library open data started out as patchy, inconsistent repositories, this would be a good start. There's a lovely couple of datasets over at ToonLibraries open data repository which has libraries over the ages, and current libraries. Check it out https://github.com/ToonLibraries/library-open-data/tree/master/library-buildings Dave Tw: @librarieshacked Web: https://england.librarydata.uk Hope this isn't one of those messages followed by a wave of unsubscribe requests. If so though, I believe sending an email to the list is ineffective - you need to go on some website or something. From: Ken Chad Sent: 31 March 2017 17:51 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Disappointment over 'basic' Taskforce dataset | The Bookseller I'm not sure to what extent the OCLC world registry of libraries might be an alternative or be a help to the Task force dataset. It is "a free global directory for libraries, consortia, archives and museums." A lot of UK public libraries are already registered on it. http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/web-services/worldcat-registry.en.html . The registry can be accessed by anyone and in addition it provides "developer-level access" via APIs so it can be embedded in external services. Sure it's not perfect either but why doesn't everyone just update that? Or maybe the task force data and the registry data could be linked--it would be nice to have just one place to update and one place to go for authoritative data. The registry is used by Local Government Library Technology (LGLibTech) to make a link from the library authority to the library details -eg Calderdale (just as an example) on this page of LGLibTech https://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/Library+Authorities-C takes you to the registry entry http://worldcat.org/registry/Institutions/65807 it provides individual branch profiles. Ken Ken Chad Consulting Ltd Tel: +44(0)7788727845 http://www.kenchadconsulting.com Twitter: @kenchad Skype: kenchadconsulting -----Original Message----- From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DESMOND CLARKE Sent: 31 March 2017 12:40 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Disappointment over 'basic' Taskforce dataset | The Bookseller The Bookseller Disappointment over 'basic' taskforce dataset http://www.thebookseller.com/news/disappointment-over-basic-taskforce-dataset-518276