Comments on: The Marketing of Transparency: Beware Wolves in Sheep's Clothing http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/ News and updates from GeoIQ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:55:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Sean Gorman http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/#comment-1110 Sean Gorman Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:09:59 +0000 http://blog.fortiusone.com/?p=1167#comment-1110 Yes there are crappy Flash apps that government contractors build as well as crappy Java apps as well as crappy HTML javascript apps. The point is not what flavor of technology you choose, but the soundness of what you build with it (user interface, work flow, scalability, openness etc.). I'm looking forward to the day when HTML 5 + canvas allows you to render tens of thousands of geometries on a map, and all the browsers support it. I'd be ecstatic if IE6 fell off a cliff and died a miserable death. Till then we'll stick with Flash because it is what works for us and our customer set. To each their own as long as it is not wasting taxpayer money with ill conceived technology deployments. cheers, sean Yes there are crappy Flash apps that government contractors build as well as crappy Java apps as well as crappy HTML javascript apps. The point is not what flavor of technology you choose, but the soundness of what you build with it (user interface, work flow, scalability, openness etc.).

I’m looking forward to the day when HTML 5 + canvas allows you to render tens of thousands of geometries on a map, and all the browsers support it. I’d be ecstatic if IE6 fell off a cliff and died a miserable death. Till then we’ll stick with Flash because it is what works for us and our customer set. To each their own as long as it is not wasting taxpayer money with ill conceived technology deployments.

cheers,
sean

]]> By: personne http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/#comment-1109 personne Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:43:31 +0000 http://blog.fortiusone.com/?p=1167#comment-1109 Ultimately there's not much difference between "crummy Java applets" and the Fortius Flash application. Modern Java is fast and there are some great open source tools using Java. However the real open Web is based on HTML (aided by Javascript), with newer faster browsers addressing the speed problems. Ultimately there’s not much difference between “crummy Java applets” and the Fortius Flash application. Modern Java is fast and there are some great open source tools using Java. However the real open Web is based on HTML (aided by Javascript), with newer faster browsers addressing the speed problems.

]]> By: Sean Gorman http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/#comment-1108 Sean Gorman Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:06:02 +0000 http://blog.fortiusone.com/?p=1167#comment-1108 Hi Eric - Thanks for the comments and I agree there are large differences between the federal government and local government. My comments are largely pointed at the federal government where there has been the most conversation around transparency. Although many examples on the mapping side of things revolve around local government. My point is simply when government funds the creation of data, that data should be made easily available to the public. If the government purchases data from a third party then, sure, it should not be made available. It breaks the license for the data. I do think cost recovery models are incredibly short sighted. Data is a public good and rationing it will severely hamper the economic multipliers it can create. Thus decreasing the tax benefits that would flow back to the government. In my opinion the government should not be in the business of trying to sell things to generate revenue. The market should sell things and the government should tax the proceeds to better supply public goods that the market will under invest in like infrastructure, education etc. When the government sells things it is inherently anti-competitive because there are monopolistic issues - only one source. Without droning on like a staid academic - this only works if local governments have funding, so they don't have to sell data. I disagree that it has to be expensive and you can always start with low laying fruit that is easy to make accessible online. It can definitely be done. Several cities have launched open data initiatives including geo - Washington DC and San Francisco being the two biggest. Sure you can keep creating crummy java applets and charging for the Whopper, but no one is going to turn up at your restaurant. Just imagine what you would get at a state run fast food restaurant. So, make the raw ingredients available to the market and let them create compelling products with it. EveryBlock is a great example of how nice the restaurant can be and how many people will turn up. So many it was bought by MSNBC and is getting more investment and scaling. That is my point, Sean, with Govt. not building software. Whether they hire a beltway bandit to do it or try it on their own. Folks like EveryBlock are always going to do a better job. If you keep the status quo folks like EveryBlock never get to play because it is all wired up by local connections and lobbyists, so the same bandits get the contract every year. If you open the data up then you can have real innovation happen. I'm sure it is Sisyphean ranting on my part, but have to hope if you say it and demonstrate it enough times change will slowly begin to occur. best, sean Hi Eric -

Thanks for the comments and I agree there are large differences between the federal government and local government. My comments are largely pointed at the federal government where there has been the most conversation around transparency.

Although many examples on the mapping side of things revolve around local government. My point is simply when government funds the creation of data, that data should be made easily available to the public. If the government purchases data from a third party then, sure, it should not be made available. It breaks the license for the data.

I do think cost recovery models are incredibly short sighted. Data is a public good and rationing it will severely hamper the economic multipliers it can create. Thus decreasing the tax benefits that would flow back to the government.

In my opinion the government should not be in the business of trying to sell things to generate revenue. The market should sell things and the government should tax the proceeds to better supply public goods that the market will under invest in like infrastructure, education etc. When the government sells things it is inherently anti-competitive because there are monopolistic issues – only one source.

Without droning on like a staid academic – this only works if local governments have funding, so they don’t have to sell data. I disagree that it has to be expensive and you can always start with low laying fruit that is easy to make accessible online.

It can definitely be done. Several cities have launched open data initiatives including geo – Washington DC and San Francisco being the two biggest.

Sure you can keep creating crummy java applets and charging for the Whopper, but no one is going to turn up at your restaurant. Just imagine what you would get at a state run fast food restaurant. So, make the raw ingredients available to the market and let them create compelling products with it. EveryBlock is a great example of how nice the restaurant can be and how many people will turn up. So many it was bought by MSNBC and is getting more investment and scaling.

That is my point, Sean, with Govt. not building software. Whether they hire a beltway bandit to do it or try it on their own. Folks like EveryBlock are always going to do a better job.

If you keep the status quo folks like EveryBlock never get to play because it is all wired up by local connections and lobbyists, so the same bandits get the contract every year. If you open the data up then you can have real innovation happen.

I’m sure it is Sisyphean ranting on my part, but have to hope if you say it and demonstrate it enough times change will slowly begin to occur.

best,
sean

]]> By: Sean Gillies http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/#comment-1107 Sean Gillies Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:16:11 +0000 http://blog.fortiusone.com/?p=1167#comment-1107 Cynical marketing (whether it's "transparency" or "web 2.0" or "SOA" or "REST") by vendors and their media sock-puppets is the real problem. "Gov't shouldn't build software" doesn't follow (though I tend to agree with you). Cynical marketing (whether it’s “transparency” or “web 2.0″ or “SOA” or “REST”) by vendors and their media sock-puppets is the real problem. “Gov’t shouldn’t build software” doesn’t follow (though I tend to agree with you).

]]> By: Eric Hammonds http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/08/24/the-marketing-of-transparency-beware-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/#comment-1106 Eric Hammonds Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:13:03 +0000 http://blog.fortiusone.com/?p=1167#comment-1106 1) Raw Data is expensive to compile and publish, especially for things like parcel and utility infrastructure maps. Many local GIS departments are minimally funded (if at all) with tax revenues, instead deriving funds from self-generated revenues (from selling stuff like raw data) and grants. In these cases, the primary function is to produce GIS data in support of other government agencies that need it (emergency services, tax collection, etc). For them to put up a crappy Java applet visualization tool for the public is gravy. For them to publish raw data is to kill their revenue stream. All of this is presuming that the government owns the data; many times, the local government is merely licensing private data in order to provide a crappy java viewer to the public. When taxpayers are fully funding government GIS, then the taxpayer has paid for the raw data and it probably should be made available for free. If the raw data costs thousands of dollars to compile and maintain, and the government can only scratch up a fraction of the cost, then let the commercial consumers of that data pay for it. 2) The most demanded format for raw GIS data is the shapefile. Love it or hate it (I'm not a particularly big fan), that's what the majority wants (for now). The kicker is you don't need ESRI software to read a shapefile; there are open source shapefile tools available, so you can convert the data to whatever format works for you (open or not). 3) See 1). Just because the government owns the data doesn't mean the taxpayer paid for it. Until www.openparcelmap.com, etc. is online and significantly complete, someone will have to pay for it. The data license will reflect this. 4) Users should be able to dictate what gets put on their Whopper, too. And they can, they just have to pay for the raw data and for processing time used on the burger server. 1) Raw Data is expensive to compile and publish, especially for things like parcel and utility infrastructure maps. Many local GIS departments are minimally funded (if at all) with tax revenues, instead deriving funds from self-generated revenues (from selling stuff like raw data) and grants. In these cases, the primary function is to produce GIS data in support of other government agencies that need it (emergency services, tax collection, etc). For them to put up a crappy Java applet visualization tool for the public is gravy. For them to publish raw data is to kill their revenue stream. All of this is presuming that the government owns the data; many times, the local government is merely licensing private data in order to provide a crappy java viewer to the public.

When taxpayers are fully funding government GIS, then the taxpayer has paid for the raw data and it probably should be made available for free. If the raw data costs thousands of dollars to compile and maintain, and the government can only scratch up a fraction of the cost, then let the commercial consumers of that data pay for it.

2) The most demanded format for raw GIS data is the shapefile. Love it or hate it (I’m not a particularly big fan), that’s what the majority wants (for now). The kicker is you don’t need ESRI software to read a shapefile; there are open source shapefile tools available, so you can convert the data to whatever format works for you (open or not).

3) See 1). Just because the government owns the data doesn’t mean the taxpayer paid for it. Until http://www.openparcelmap.com, etc. is online and significantly complete, someone will have to pay for it. The data license will reflect this.

4) Users should be able to dictate what gets put on their Whopper, too. And they can, they just have to pay for the raw data and for processing time used on the burger server.

]]>