After the great success of Linked Data and Libraries 2010 we are doing it again!

Linked Data and Libraries 2011 will be held at The British Library in London on Thursday July 14th.  Again it will be a free event, with limited spaces allocated, so register early.

The agenda is yet to be finalised, but as per 2010 it will be a mixture of general Linked Data overviews & experience, and library Linked Data speakers.  We hope to hear from the British Library, W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, LOD-LAM Summit, and others. We are also hoping to find time for the 10 minute lightening talks slot, that worked so well last time.

Register early and/or if you would like to propose a topic or speaker, email me – richard.wallis@talis.com.

Image from a photo on Flickr by Fuzzyyol

Friday night – nothing on the TV – I know! I’ll browse through the Protection of Freedoms Bill, currently passing through the UK Parliament. Sad I know, but interesting.

Lets scroll back in time a bit to November 19th 2010 and a government press conference introduced by a video from Prime Minister David Cameron.  The headline story was about the publishing of government spending and contract data, but towards the end of this 109 second short he said the following:

… the most exciting is a new right to data. Which will let people request streams of government information and use it for social or commercial purposes.  Take all this together and we really can make this one of the most open, accountable and transparent governments there is.  Let me end by saying this. You are going to have so much information about what we do, how much of your money we spend doing it, and what the outcome is.  So use it, exploit it, hold us to account.  Together we can set a great example of what a modern democracy aught to look like. (my emphasis)

Obviously to realise this Right to Data there needs to be some legislation, which brings me to the Protection of Freedoms Bill.  This is one of those bills which covers all sorts of issues, from rules for destruction of fingerprints and DNA profiles, CCTV camera regulations, detention of terrorist suspects, to freedom of information and data protection.  Zooming in on the bits on the topic of the release and publication of datasets held by public authorities, we find a set of clauses that amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

Re-use

After some amendments which allow for datasets and provision in electronic form we get this: “the public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, provide the information to the applicant in an electronic form which is capable of re-use.”  Unfortunately there is no definition of the term re-use.  It could be argued that a pdf of some tables in a MS Word document could be re-used, where as I believe the spirit of the legislation should be made more explicit to by identifying non-proprietary data formats.  I know this would be a tricky job for the parliamentary draftsmen, as we would not want to restrict it to things, such as XML and csv, that could age and be replaced by something better which then could not be used as it had not been mentioned in the legislation, but I believe that just using the term ‘re-use’ is far too woolly and open to [mis]interpretation.

What is [not] a dataset

This is one of the areas that raises most concern for me. Checkout this wording from the Bill: I am OK with (a) – data collected as part of an authority doing it’s job – and (c) – don’t change the data you have collected – publishing that raw data is important.  However (b) specifically excludes data that is the product of analysis.  Presumably analysis of collected data is one significant way that an authority measures the outcomes of its efforts.  Understanding that analysis will help understand the subsequent decisions and actions they make and take.  I assume that there may be some specific reasons that underpin this blanket exclusion of analysis data.  If there are, they should be identified, instead of generally throttling the output of useful data that will go a long way to helping with Mr Cameron’s stated ambition for us to be able to see “what the outcome is” of the spending of public money.

Release of datasets for re-use

This is a whole new section (11A)  to be added to the 2000 act to cover the release of datasets. It covers ownership, copyright, and/or database right of the information to be published and states that it should be published under “the licence specified by the Secretary of State in a code of practice issued under section 45”. Section 45 basically puts in to the hands of the Secretary of State the definition of the license(s) data should be published under.  As of today the Open Government Licence for public sector information is what is wanted to keep the publishing of information open.  However, what is there to stop a future Secretary of State, who has a less open outlook in replacing it with far more restrictive licences?  Do we not need some form of presumption of openness being attached to the Secretary of States powers as part of this change in legislation?

On the topic of presumptions of openness, the wording of this bill contains phrases such as “unless the authority is satisfied that it is not appropriate for the dataset to be published” and “where reasonably practicable”.  It is clear that many in the public sector are not as enthusiastic about publishing data as the current government position and such vague phrases as these may well be unreasonably used by some in justifying a throttling of the stream of information.   They could easily be used to build in a bureaucratic decision hurdle for each dataset to have to jump, proving its appropriateness and practicality, before publication.  I am sure that it would not be beyond a parliamentary draftsman’s skill to produce wording that means that all will be published, unless a specific objection is raised for an individual dataset, for reasons of excessive effort or data protection reasons.

Up-dated data

Data published by an authority should be published under a scheme, the following applies here:How should we interpret “any up-dated version held by the authority of such a dataset”? My interpretation is that once a dataset has been published is shall continue to be published as it changes.  The precedent for this is spending data – having published authority spending for January 2011, authorities should be automatically publishing it for February and following months.  But what if, in response to a request, an authority publishes the contents of a spreadsheet used to track the amount of salt applied to roads in its area during winter 2010-11 and then uses a different spreadsheet for the following winter.  Does the output of that new spreadsheet constitute a new dataset, or an up-date to it’s predecessor?  From the wording in the Bill it is not clear.

Who does it cover?

I probably need a bit of help here from those that understand the public sector better than I do, but I am suspicious that references to the organisations listed in Schedule 1 and “the wider public sector”, do not take the net wide enough to cover some of the data that is relevant to our daily lives but is delivered on behalf of some authorities by third parties.  For example I am aware that recently a large city was not able to inform citizens of their rubbish collection schedules because that data was considered as commercially restricted by their service provider.

So in summary, I welcome the commitment to a right to data being realised by streams of government information about what we do, how much of our money is spend doing it, and what the outcomes are.  However, I am sceptical as to how effective the measures in the current Protection of Freedoms Bill will be in delivering them.  Especially in the light of very recent comments made by the Prime Minister highlighting the "enemies of enterprise" in Whitehall and town halls across the country, attacking what he called the "mad" bureaucracy that holds back entrepreneurs.  Those enemies are just the people who might take the wording of this bill as ammunition in their cause.

Whilst being concerned about this topic, I have been wondering why few are commenting on it.  Are the majority just taking the press conference statements by David Cameron, and his fellow Ministers, as indications of a battle won, or am I missing something?  I promote Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s 5 Star Data as the steps towards a Web of Linked Data – if we don’t get the publishing of public sector data to at least 3 star standard (Available as machine-readable structured data – in non-proprietary format), many of the current ambitions may remain just that, ambitions.  That would be a massive missed opportunity. 

So are we getting a right to data? – or just some provisions to extend the Freedom of Information Act a bit further in the dataset direction?  I’m not sure.

Personal note: As you may tell from the above, I am no expert on the interpretation of parliamentary legislation, and I have left several unanswered questions hanging in this post.  Any help in clarifying my thinking, confirming or disproving my assumptions, or answering some of those questions, will be gratefully received in comments to this post or your own posted thoughts.

As often is the way, events have conspired to prevent me from producing this third and final part in this How & Why of Local Government Spending Data as soon as I wanted.  So my apologies to those eagerly awaiting this latest.

To quickly recap, in Part 1 I addressed issues around why pick on spending data as a start point for Linked Data in Local Government, and indeed why go for Linked Data at all.  In Part 2, I used some of the excellent work that Stuart Harrison at Lichfield District Council has done in this area, as examples to demonstrate how you can publish spending data as Linked Data, for both human and programmatic consumption.

I am presuming that you are still with me on my basic assumptions “…publishing this [local government spending] data is a good thing” and “Publishing Local Authority data, such as local spending data, as ‘Linked Data’ is also a good thing”, plus the technique of using URIs to name things in a globally unique way (that also provides a link to more information) is not providing you with mental indigestion.  So, I now want to move on to some of the issues that are causing debate in the community which come under the headings of ontologies  identifiers.

Ontologies

An ontology, according to Wikipeda, is a formal representation of knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain  -  an ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain – that is, the type of objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations.  So in our quest to publish spending data what ontology should we use?  The Payments Ontology, with the accompanying guide to it’s application, is what is needed.  Using it, it becomes possible to describe individual payments, or expenditure lines, and their relationship between the authority (payment:payer) the supplier (payment:payee) category (payment:expenditureCategory) etc.  The next question is how do you identify the things that you are relating together using this ontology.

Lets take this one step at a time:

1. Give the expenditure line, or individual payment, an identifier possibly generated by our accounts system. eg. 8605670.
2. Make that identifier unique to our local authority by prefixing it with our internet domain name. eg. http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670 – note the prefix of ‘http://’.  This enables anyone wanting detail about this item to follow the link to our site to get the information.
3. Associate a payer with the payment with an RDF statement (or triple) using the Payments Ontology:
   http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670 
   payment:payer
   http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/local-authority/41UD .

   Note I am using an identifier for the payer that is published by statistics.data.gov.uk.  That is so that everyone else will unambiguously understand which authority is the one responsible for the payment.
   

4. Follow the same approach for associating the payee http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670 
   payment:payee
   http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/supplier/bristow-sutor .
   
5. And then repeat the process for categorisation, payment value etc.

This immediately throws up a couple of questions, such as why use a locally defined identifier for the payee – surely there is an identifier I can use that other will recognise, such as company or VAT number!  – there are, but as of the moment there are no established sets of URI identifiers for these.  OpenCorporates.com are doing some excellent work in this area, but Companies House, the logical choice for publishing such identifiers, have yet to do so.  Pragmatically it is probably a good idea to have a local identifier anyway and then associate it with another publicly recognised identifier:
http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/supplier/bristow-sutor
owl:sameAs
http://opencorporates.com/companies/uk/01431688 .

Identifiers

Because this is all very new and still emerging, we now find ourselves in a bit of a chicken-or-egg situation.   I presume that most authorities have not built a mini spending website, like Lichfield District Council has, to serve up details when someone follows a link like this: http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670 

You could still use such an identifier using your authority domain, and plan to back it up later with a web service to provide more information later.  Or you could let someone else, who takes a copy of your raw data, do it for you as OpenlyLocal might: http://openlylocal.com/financial_transactions/135/2010/33854 or maybe how the project we are working on with LGID might: http://id.spending.esd.org.uk/Payment/36UF/ds00024616.  If the open flexible world of Linked Data it doesn’t matter too much which domain an identifier is published from, or for that matter how many [related] identifiers are used for the same thing.

It does matter however, for those looking to the identifying URI for some idea of authority.  As I say above, technically it doesn’t matter who’s domain the identifier comes from, but I believe it would be better overall if it came from the authority who’s payment it is identifying.  Which puts us back in the chicken-or-egg situation as to resolving the URI to serve up more information.   The joy of Linked Data is that, provided aggregators consider the possibility of being able to identify source authorities data accurately when they encode it, it should be possible to automatically retrofit  links between URIs at a later date.

In summary over this series of posts we are seeing a technology which, although it has obvious benefits, is still early on the development curve; being applied to a process which is also new and scary for many.  An ideal breading ground for cries of pain, assertions of ‘it doesn’t work’ or ‘not worth bothering’, yet with the potential to provide a powerful foundation for a future open, accessible, and beneficial to authorities, government, citizens, and UK Plc data rich environment.  Yes it is worth bothering, just don’t expect benefits on day, or even month, one.

I started the previous post in this mini-series with an assumption – ..working on the assumption that publishing this [local government spending] data is a good thing. That post attracted several comments, fortunately none challenging the assumption.   So learning from that experience I am going to start with another assumption in this post.  Publishing Local Authority data, such as local spending data, as ‘Linked Data’ is also a good thing.  Those new to this mini-series, check back to the previous post for my reasoning behind the assertion.

In this post I am going to be concentrating more on the How than the Why Bother. 

To help with this I am going to use, some of the excellent work that Stuart Harrison at Lichfield District Council has done in this area, as examples.  Take a look at the spending data part of their site: spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/.   On the surface navigating your way around the site looking at council spend by type, subject, month, and supplier is the kind of experience a user would expect. Great for a website displaying information about a single council. 

However, it is more than a web site.  Inspection of the Download data tab shows that you can get your hands on the source data in csv format.  Here is one line, representing a line of expenditure, from that data:

"http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/local-authority/41UD","Lichfield District Council","2010-04-06","7747","http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670","120.00","BRISTOW & SUTOR","401","Revenue Collection","Supplies & Services","Bailiff Fees",""

… which represents the data displayed on this human readable page:

Looking through the csv, you can pick out the strings of characters for information such as the date, supplier name, department name etc.  In addition you can pick out a couple of URIs:

• http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/local-authority/41UD – The UK Government identifier for Lichfield DC
• http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670 –  Lichfield’s identifier for this payment

In the context of csv, that’s all these URIs are, identifiers.  However because they are http URIs you can click through to the address to get more information.  If you do that with your web browser you get a human readable representation of the data.  These sites also provide access to the same data, formatted in RDF, for use by developers.

You can see that data by adding ‘.rdf’ to the end of the address, thus: http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/spend/8605670.rdf and then selecting the ‘view source’ option of your browser for the page of gobbledegook that you get back.  

Inspecting the RDF, you will see that most things, except descriptive labels and financial values, are are now identified as URIs such as http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/subjective/bailiff-fees and http://spending.lichfielddc.gov.uk/invoice/7747.  Again if you follow those links, you will get a human readable representation of that resource, and the RDF behind it by adding a ‘.rdf’ suffix.

The eagle-eyed, inspecting the RDF-XML for Lichfield payment number 8605670, will have noticed a couple of things.  Firstly, a liberal sprinkling of elements with names like payment:expenditureCategory or payment:payment. These come from the Payments Ontology as published on data.gov.uk as the recommended way of encoding spending, and other payment associated data, in RDF.

Secondly, you may have spotted that there is no date, or supplier name or identifier.  That is because those pieces of information are attributes associated with a payment – invoice number 7747 in this case.

Zooming out from the data for a moment, and looking at the human readable form, you will see that most things, like spend type, invoice number, supplier name, are clickable links, which take you through to relevant information about those things – address details & payments for a supplier, all payments for a category etc.  This intuitive natural navigation style often comes as a positive consequence of thinking about data as a set of linked resources instead of the traditional rows & columns that we are used to.  Another great example of this effect can be found on a site such as the BBC Wildlife Finder.  That is not to say that you could not have created such a site without even considering Linked Data, of course you could.  However, data modelled as a set of linked resources almost self-describes the ideal navigation paths for a user interface to display it to a human.

The Linked Data practice of modelling data, such as spending data, as a set of linked resources and identifying those resources with URIs [which if looked up will provide information about that resource] is equally applicable to those outside of an individual authority.  By being able to consume that data, whilst understanding the relationships within it and having confidence in the authority and persistence of the identifiers within it, a developer can approach the task of aggregating, comparing, and using that data in their applications more easily.

So, how do I (as a local authority) get my data from its raw flat csv format, in to RDF with suitable URIs and produce a site like Lichfield’s?  The simple answer is that you may not have to – others may help you do some, if not all, of it.   With help from organisations such as esd-toolkit, OpenlyLocal, SpotlightOnSpend, and with projects such as the xSpend project we are working on with LGID, many of the conversion [from csv], data formatting processes, and aggregation are being addressed – maybe not as quickly or completely as we would like, but they are.  As to a human readable web view of your data, you may be able to copy Stuart by taking up the offer of a free Talis Platform Store and then running your own web server with his code that he hopes to share as open source.  Alternatively it might be worth waiting for others to aggregate your data and provide a way for your citizens to view your data.

As easy as that then! – Well not quite, there are some issues about URI naming and creation, and how you bring the data together that still do need addressing by those engaged in this.  But that is for Part 3….

National Government instructing the 300+ UK Local Authorities to publish “New items of local government spending over £500 to be published on a council-by-council basis from January 2011” has had the proponents of both open, and closed, data excited over the last few months.  For this mini series of posts I am working on the assumption that publishing this data is a good thing, because I want to move on and assert that [when publishing] one format/method to make this data available should be Linked Data.

This immediately brings me to the Why Bother? bit. This itself breaks in to two connected questions – Why bother publishing any local authority data as Linked Data? and Why bother using the, unexciting simplistic, spending data as a a place to start? 

I believe that spending data is a great place to start, both for publishing local government data and for making such data linked.  Someone at national level was quite astute choosing spending as a starting point.  To comply with the instruction all an authority has to do is produce a file containing five basic elements for each payment transaction: An Id, a date, a category,  a payee, and an amount.  At a very basic level it is very easy to measure if an authority has done that or not.

Guidance from data.gov.uk expands on this a little by mandating the following:

… a little more onerous, possibly around the areas of identifying company numbers and Service Categorization, but not much room for discussion/interpretation.

As to the file formats to publish data, the same advice mandates: The files are to be published in CSV file format - supplemented by – Authorities may wish to publish the data in additional formats as well as the CSV files (e.g. linked data, XML, or PDFs for casual browsers). There is no reason why they should not do this, but this is not a substitute for the CSV files.

So fairy clear, and measurable, then. You either have published your required basic elements of data in a CSV format file, or you have not.  Couple this with the political ambitions and drive behind the Government’s Transparency Agenda, and local authorities will have difficulty in not delivering this.  Although some are being a bit tardy and others seem reticent to publish in formats other than pdf.

OK so why bother with applying Linked Data techniques to this [boring] spending data?  Well, precisely because it is simple data, it is comparatively easy to do, and because everybody is publishing this data the benefits of linking should soon become apparent.   Linked Data is all about identifying things and concepts, giving them a globally addressable identifiers (URIs) and then describing the relationships between them.  

For those new to Linked Data, the use of URIs as identifiers often causes confusion.   A URI, such as  http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/local-authority-district/00CN, is a string of characters that is as much an identifier as the payroll number on your pay-check, or a barcode on a can of beans.  It has couple of attributes that make it different from traditional identifiers.  Firstly, the first part of it is created from the Internet domain name of the organisation that publish the identifier.  This means that it can be globally unique. Theoretically you could have the same payroll number as the the barcode number on my can of beans – adding the domain avoids any possibility of confusion.  Secondly, because the domain is prefixed by http:// it gives the publisher the ability to provide information about the thing identified, using well established web technologies.  In this particular example, http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/local-authority-district/00CN is the identifier for Birmingham City Council, if you click on it [using it as an internet address] data.gov.uk will supply you information about it – name, location, type of authority etc.

Following this approach, creating URI identifiers for suppliers, categories, and individual payments and defining the relationships between them using the Payments Ontology (more on this when I come on to the How)  leads to a Linked Data representation of the data.  In technical terms a comparatively easy step using scripts etc.

By publishing Linked Spending Data and loading it in to a Linked Data store, as Lichfield DC have done, it becomes possible to query it, to identifies things like all payments for a supplier; or suppliers for a category, etc.

If you then load data for several authorities in to an aggregate store, as we are doing in partnership with LGID, those queries can identify patterns or comparisons across authorities.  Which brings me to ….

Why bother publishing any local authority data as Linked Data?  Publishing as Linked Data enables an authority’s data to be meshed with data from other authorities and other sources such as national government.  For example, the data held at statistics.data.gov.uk includes which county an authority is located within.  By using that data as part of a query, it would for instance be possible to identify the total spend, by category, for all authorities in a county such as the West Midlands.  

As more authority data sets are published, sharing the same identifiers for authority category etc., they will naturally link together, enabling the natural navigation of the information between council departments, services, costs, suppliers, etc.  Once this step has been taken and the dust settles a bit, this foundation of linked data should become an open data  platform for innovating development and the publishing of other data that will link in with this basic but important financial data.

There are however some more technical issues, URI naming, aggregation, etc.,  to be overcome or at least addressed in the short term to get us to that foundation.  I will cover these in part 2 of this series.

A colleague sharing their experience of visiting Ironbridge, promoted as “The Birthplace of the Industrial Revolution” helped clarify some thoughts I have been brewing to help convey where the current Linked Data enthusiasms and initiatives may lead us.

The famous Iron Bridge, opened in 1781, spans the River Severn in Shropshire, England.  To quote the Wikipedia “It was the first arch bridge in the world to be made out of cast iron, a material which was previously far too expensive to use for large structures. However, a new blast furnace nearby lowered the cost and so encouraged local engineers and architects to solve a long-standing problem of a crossing over the river.“  The raw materials of iron ore and coal had been known for a long time, but it took the building of a nearby furnace, using the innovation of coke as a fuel, that enabled the local community to invest in the construction.  The outcome was not only to stimulate the local commercial and administrative economy, but it also became an 18th century tourist attraction, which it continues to be today.

All very interesting, but what has this to do with Linked Data and it’s future?

The impact of Linked Data and the Web of Data it enables, on the way we interact and do business, will be greater than that of the World Wide Web that it builds upon.

When one makes statements like that one, you are often asked to justify yourself.  As you may know, I like to use analogies to help clarify things and I believe the Industrial Revolution is a good one in the case of the future for Linked Data and associated techniques.  I am also very aware that analogies tend to fall apart if you pick at the detail too much, so please bear with me on this one.

Like the Industrial Revolution, Linked Data is building on what went before.  Before the Iron Bridge, there were other bridges, roads, and uses of iron.  Before Linked data there was/is the Web – a globally distributed web of linked human-readable web pages, upon which are surfaced words and images for our information, entertainment and commercial desires.  Data of course plays it’s part, often powering the websites that we all consume.

So what is so special about a Web of Data? – The data comes out from behind  those websites to be linked with other data across the web, or maybe an intranet.  Using the same techniques for linking pages together [the URL], data identifiers are given URIs.  This means that a piece of data is given an identifier that is addressable across the web and therefore linkable with other data identified in a similar way.

So where does the Industrial Revolution analogy kick in?  Well, once data are identifiable in a globally distributed context, they can be linked, mixed, mashed, and generally used to add value to each other.  Your data can become the raw material for someone else’s process – your Wikipedia comment about an animal can become the description on a, data powered, BBC page about that species.  As with coal, which after some refinement can become coke to be used to add value to the iron smelting process, any published data can be the raw material for value adding/combining processes.  The processor, utilising their knowledge, skills, and experience to produce an alloy of data, the combination of which is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

In the same way that some freely available elements, such as the air pumped in to that blast furnace, were needed to get the process going; freely and openly available data, such as governments and the media are publishing, are priming the pumps of a data revolution.

Whenever there is value to be added in a process there is both community and commercial opportunity.  Once people start using their skill and understanding of a facet of knowledge, to link data from one free, or commercial, source with more free or commercial data they can produce either a saleable result, and/or an enhancement to their own services.  The output of one value-add process can then become one of the sources for yet another, and so on.

To finally stretch my analogy just a little further – looking back to those early days in the Severn Valley, it is possible to identify the building-blocks that led to commercial steel production, the age of steam, the automobile industry, and space flight.  Most of which would have been unthinkable by those early pioneers.  Pre-1994, could we have predicted the growth of Google, YouTube, Wikipeadia, and Twitter?  In 2010 can we identify the building-blocks of a data revolution?  – I think maybe we can.

So how will such a revolution, underpinned by Linked Data, change the way we interact and do business, more fundamentally than the Web has? -  By creating whole new communities and industries to connect, supply, trade, enhance, distribute, interpret, and build services and applications upon a supporting web of globally available data elements and alloys.

On the eve of the American Thanksgiving holiday, millions of people travel to spend time with friends and family.  Before I share a meal with relatives, I contemplate the connection between the first thanksgiving and the emerging Open Government movement.

The “First Thanksgiving” celebration in the US was a feast shared by 53 starving pilgrims who survived a brutal winter in New England, and 90 Native Americans.  The Native Americans knew how to manage their land and waters to provide sufficient fish, meat, vegetables and fruit.

The connection between the first American Thanksgiving and Open Government has to do with adapting to a new world by sharing information.  Four hundred years ago,  the Native Americans shared information on seeds, crops and planting conditions, helping the pilgrims survive.  Today, sharing information via the Web is helping us to better understand climate conditions, our health care options and issues impacting our local community.

Last week I joined about 250 people at the first International Open Government Conference, hosted by the US Department of Commerce in Washington DC.  Approximately half the conference delegates were from government, the balance from academia and the private sector.  The speakers discussed Open Government projects underway in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. Speakers shared success stories and areas for future development.  The common theme: democratizing public sector data and driving innovation.  Jonas Rabinovitch from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs highlighted several eGov strategies in developing nations.  Mr. Rabinovitch noted that all but three UN member nations have a basic Web presence, many offer online forms and some provide the ability to perform transactions via the Web.

Given the conference was hosted in the US Department of Commerce, data.gov featured prominently.  “The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.”  Seven countries have stood up Open Government sites in the last 18 months, including UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Finland.  Government administrators are seeking to restore public trust and establish an environment of transparency, participation and collaboration with the public.

The US Administration launched its Open Government Initiative in April 2009.  In the last two years, I’ve watched the US Executive Branch begin to move from  a “need to know” to a “need to share” culture.  This cultural transition and thus this Open Government Conference, was truly historic.  The conference underscored to me that we all, regardless of our political views and affiliation, live in a highly  interconnected global economy, underpinned by the World Wide Web.

Respected advisors on Open Government initiatives including Professor Jim Hendler of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, agreed that public participation and collaboration will be key to the success of Open Government initiatives.  I believe that more conferences like this one and the Open Government Data Camp 2010 held in London last week, drawing delegates from a variety of disciplines, from several countries, will do a great deal to reinvigorate civic engagement and economic growth from the ground up.

Government employees are responding to mandates to publish content to Open Government websites.  Data.gov was launched in April 2009 with 47 data sets.  Vivek Kundra, U.S Chief Information Officer stated that data.gov has in excess of 300,000 data sets as of November 2010.  A large portion of the data.gov data sets are geospatial information which is an opportunity for scientists and entrepreneurs to build tools for analysis and visualization of this valuable data.  The UK Government as published over 4,600 data sets, including many from Great Britain’s national mapping agency, Ordnance Survey, providing the most accurate and up-to-date geographic data for the UK.

“The stakes are high for our interlinked global economy.”  Dr. Robert Schaefer, Deputy Project Scientist from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab gave a compelling presentation on the need for mechanisms to make sense of published data as Linked Open Data. Publishing the content as in RDF is not sufficient, rather, providing context on what the data implies is necessary.  Better tools for analysts and scientists to extract meaning from Linked Open Data will allow critical information on climate change and space weather, for example, to be more readily understood by policy makers.  Professor Schaefer stated the implications for climate change are serious, wide ranging & urgent.  Current CO2 emissions are higher than the International Panel of Climate Change “worst case” scenario.  Billions of people may experience serious consequences from climate change.  Professor Schaefer reiterated the need to get started as soon as possible.  “When the water from the sea rises, millions of people will have to move.”  This international conference will hopefully stimulate cooperation between the public and private sectors.  It is a critical step in making data accessible and providing decision support tools for space weather and climate change.

Mr. Kundra acknowledged we have much more to do to improve the quality of published data sets.  He said, “when I’m able to perform analytics on the fly, grounded on quality data, we will have achieved success.”  Delegates were encouraged by Mr. Kundra and  other speakers to build out communities of interest, lead by individuals, rather than government agencies. The US Government is regularly launching challenges, see http://www.challenge.gov, with modest cash prizes targeting citizens to gain insights on how we, the people, not government, can solve problems ranging from education on childhood obesity to sustainable urban housing that respects the environment.

Beth Simone Noveck, United States Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government, leads President Obama’s Open Government Initiative.  Based at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, she is an expert on technology and institutional innovation. Ms. Noveck stated that “the Open Government Initiative is not transparency for transparency’s sake.  It is through participation and collaboration with academia and the public sector that there is value.”  Creating partnerships to use Open Government Data for important and unforeseen uses is empowering individuals with the ability to make better decisions and affect our quality of life.

We are in the very early stages of making Open Government available as Linked Data. Today, we are in the very early phases, however,  there are many good reasons to support Open Government initiatives including accountability in spending, improved health care provision, and addressing climate change and space weather which affects the world’s population.   The international data exchange standards are in now in place.  While experts will continue to refine the technical underpinnings and best practices will evolve, the citizen lead movement, assisted by government, is truly underway.

Bright young geeks are increasingly involved in American civic life through non-profit organizations like Code for America.  Passionate entrepreneurs like Dan Melton show that being being super bright and engaged at a grassroots level in government is both hip and necessary.  Code for America recruited twenty “fellows” from 362 applicants to get involved in city projects in 2011.  One example discussed was the Boston Project whose idea is to bring info on students together & create interesting applications leveraging federal census content, student data, transit info, city and state data.

Each month new mobile applications and social networking solutions are made available.  These are not expensive, government top down initiatives, rather, they are coming from the ground up by military personnel, students, local government officials, publishers, scientists and citizens who value transparent government.  An interesting mobile app for Android, iPhone and the iPad was unveiled for the New York Senate.  It is a real-time constituent mobile dashboard to the legislative process allowing citizens to connect with Senators, find and comment on bills, review votes and transcripts.

Academics are doing innovative research.  Grad students and post-docs are rapidly prototyping what the new world of open data will look like.   An increasingly number of software companies, including my employer Talis, are producing light weight platforms and cloud computing solutions.  Thousands of smart people have been creating the foundation of the Linked Data “ecosystem” in the form of International Data Standards and best practices over the last fifteen years, largely through the important work of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

The availability of improved development tools is seen as a requirement for widespread proliferation of Semantically enabled applications, however,  people are leveraging international standards such as RDF for Linked Data, content sharing models, well-documented licensing models, and existing best practices.  Fully 25% of the applications shipped on a new Apple iPhone use government produced content.

I believe there are significant opportunities for commercial software firms to produce services and products to visualize data sets, find related data sets and most importantly, provide mechanisms as easy to use as the early Web to publish machine and human readable data as Linked Data.  There is burgeoning information economy rapidly forming around provision of public and private data mixed together in novel ways.  I believe that in 2011, truly useful tools for Web developers to create compelling Linked Data applications will be available for use with Open Government data.

We should all acknowledge that data will never be 100% perfect.  Real data is dirty, face it.  Yes, concerns will linger about misinterpretation and inappropriate mashups until people gain experience in making informed decisions based the data presented.  Be patient and don’t expect it to be perfect on day one or even year one.  Allow best practices to emerge from the ground up, by communities of interest.  Issues of data quality, provenance, context and important elements such as units of measure will all be addressed as Linked Data becomes more mainstream.  Harvard Business School published a blue print for use of open government data.  The W3C provides lots of useful guidance on eGovernment and Linked Data activities.

Just as the early American pilgrims experienced miscalculations in weather and agriculture, they eventually they figured out how to plant seeds correctly and increase their potential for a bountiful harvest.  Through information sharing and discussion by informed citizens, the US evolved a free and democratic form of government that is admired by millions of people around the world.

I’m optimistic that the citizens of the world will leverage Open Government initiatives for positive outcomes.  The more our governments support openness and transparency through Open Government initiatives, the more we, the people, can solve issues that matter at the community-level or on a global level.  The stakes are high and we should be grateful and cooperate to harness the power of Open Government data and the Web.  We are defining our history, as well as our future, today.

To quote John ‘Hannibal’ Smith, from that wonderful bit of 1980s TV, “I love it when a plan comes together!”.   Of course aficionados of the A-Team will probably remember ‘the plan’ was often only apparent in retrospect, although it’s general intention was clear from the start.

The adoption of  Linked Data and the realisation of all that potential benefit, is looking a bit like an A-Team episode – the eventual outcome being clear from the start, but with many setbacks, skirmishes to fight, partners to woo, nerves to calm, and teams to lead on the way.

To break the metaphor at this point, I see Linked Data as more of a shared vision than a plan laid out before us.  Nevertheless, I think we are staring to see elements of it ‘starting to come together’.

One very obvious example, is what Ordnance Survey is doing by continuing to open up their location data.  Now that OS have defined a URI for every UK postcode unit [eg. ‘SO16 4GU’ = http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/postcodeunit/SO164GU], why would anyone [re-]publishing data in the future not use these identifiers to reference their postcode information?  By that simple step they will be linked in with a wealth of ancillary information about the location – easting/northing, ward, district, county, country, etc.

Great I hear you say, but show me an example of what that could lead to!  Being lazy, I’ll let the inimitable John Goodwin of the OS do it for me.  In his recent appropriately named “So what can I do with the new Ordnance Survey Linked Data?” post, he shows how by merging data from a previous Talis project, produced for the Department of Innovation and Skills, he can deliver a very different way of accessing the same data. 

The BIS Research Funding Explorer project brought together data about UK Government research funding, from several research councils and the Intellectual Property Office, and brought them together in a Linked Data driven application to display UK centres of research excellence. 

John explains how by mixing Linked Data, published for that project, with OS Linked Data, he has been able to develop a different way of accessing the data.  In his, prototype, application you are presented with a map of the UK showing the regions as defined by the European Union.  By clicking on one of the EU regions you are presented with a list of the projects from within that area.  He has also added the ability to access by county or District/Unitary Authority. A simple, but effective, way of demonstrating that data, in Linked Data form, from one source can be easily combined with data from another source to deliver benefit.

Of course even with this example we are seeing the effect of joining just a couple of jigsaw pieces together.  With Linked Data, such as this from OS, being published at an ever increasing rate, it will not be long before a bigger picture starts to form as more and more data pieces are linked together.

I love it when you can see a plan coming together!

The UK Government Transparency agenda is encouraging Local Government as well as National Government to publish its data as Open Data and Linked Data, reflecting the world leading progress that data.gov.uk has made on these fronts over the last year and a bit.

I am sat in the opening session of Socitm 2010 conference, in sunny Brighton, whilst writing this.  Already it is clear that local government spending is a major issue for the sector.  In it’s broad sense, of how much local authorities can [or cannot] spend

, it is providing the background for the whole conference.  Not doom and glom here though.  IT could be seen as a knight in shining armour  to help the public sector deliver better services what the encouraging thought proffered by Louisa Preston as she launched the day.  In its more narrow sense, the requirement to publish data about all local government spending items over £500 from January 2011 onwards, it gives a focused example of the opportunity for a significant change in thinking and practice by the sector.

As Nodalities readers are well aware, Linked Data tools, techniques, and technologies have massive potential to simplify the publishing, linking, aggregating, and making data work across a web of data.  It is no coincidence that data.gov.uk is making steady valuable progress publishing key data sets in linked data form in the Talis Platform – it is an obvious step.  For many in local government, linked data is something they have never met before.   For them the, traditionally unnatural, step of openly publishing what in the past would have been a private report out of the back of their finance system, is a significant step in itself.

It is the responsibility of those of us, who understand the benefits of taking the extra step beyond just publishing a simple csv file to publish in Linked data form, to make it easy for all authorities to understand and take the combined step of publishing Linked Data from the start.

To that end, we at Talis recently announced a free stores offer for all UK local authorities to publish their spending data as Linked Data.

Traditionally our approach would be host a free open day to help those in local government understand Linked Data and the benefits to them.  Recognising the broader economic climate, and its influence on local government spending in that broader sense, that doesn’t seem to be a good idea.

Many organisations, not least Socitm (there is a Linked Data session at the conference today) and the Local Government Group, in the sector are looking to promote this approach.  We are therefore going to work with the sector to promote this message.

To that end we are to participate in the Open Data strand of the free Local by Social online conference, 3 – 9 November being hosted by LGID. 

As well as checking out, what looks to be a quality online event, stay tuned to the Talis initiatives in this area.

If Sir Tim Berners-Lee can equate Linked Data with a packet of  crisps/potato chips, I thought I would take a stab at another food metaphor for this post. 

Linked Open Data (LOD) is a concept that many believe they understand.  Take yourself to most any conference that has a connection with data, or the web, or the Internet at the moment, and it will not belong before you see a slide of the Linked Open Data cloud diagram, or of Sir Tim imploring us to give him our raw data now, or if you are very lucky a shot of him doing his imploring whilst stood in front of a shot of the LOD cloud.  -  Simple really, just publish your data as Linked Open Data and all will be wonderful as we move towards the sunlit Semantic Web uplands.  Unfortunately life is never that simple – LOD is not a single identifiable thing.  As Paul Walk eloquently puts it:

1. data can be open, while not being linked
2. data can be linked, while not being open
3. data which is both open and linked is increasingly viable
4. the Semantic Web can only function with data which is both open and linked

As with any recipe for success, the majority concentrate on the final result.  Praising or criticising it as a whole, without identifying the benefits or otherwise, of the individual ingredients.  Take a strawberry pavlova for instance.  If you you are in to that kind of thing, a delightful culmination of the culinary arts designed to send your taste buds in to raptures.  Unless that is, you don’t like cream, or you don’t like strawberries, or can’t abide meringue, in which case the whole thing seems a little pointless.

What has this got to do with Linked Open Data (LOD), I hear you ask.  Well, I am increasingly seeing LOD being presented as the goal for those wishing to publish their data on line.  My position is that the eventual goal, from which will spring a Semantic Web, is a global web of linked and open data. However, there are many steps from where we are now to achieving that goal.  Within audiences that I present to, and/or sit amongst, I see people who for whatever reasons do not ‘get’ one or more of the components of LOD – they cannot envisage opening up any of their data, or think that using a web address for an identifier is over complex, or have a religious aversion to RDF.  As a result they dismiss the whole recipe as not for them, or worse still, as something impractical that will become nothing more than the plaything of a few passionate enthusiasts.

When someone who is still struggling with the concept of opening up their organisation’s data; or why RDF might be a more useful format than csv, is shown the ubiquitous Linked Open Data cloud diagram with encouragement to join in – it is hardly surprising they remain a little unconvinced.  This isn’t a criticism of presenters either.  In only 20 minutes on a stage, it is difficult to go into underlying detail.

Let my try in a few paragraphs to break the LOD pavlova in to it’s ingredients

•  Data – In the context of  this post, by data I mean machine readable information, produced in a format that can be consumed and processed by other machines.  Inevitably, this means file formats such as csv, XML, RDF, etc. , but not something like pdf, html, or word, which although they are in a transferrable format it is designed for human consumption not machine analysis.

  For some, just this step from their current human targeted format, to a machine readable one, is a significant one.

• Open Data  – Data (see above) which is accessible for all to download, view, and consume in a way that is not encumbered by licensing that restricts its use.  For example, the licensing used by data.gov.uk data.  By definition data which is restricted for certain uses is not fully open.  

  In our internet based world, openness can also be defined in terms of technical accessibility.  If it is only available after a login process, or it is only available to users behind a firewall, it couldn’t be considered as open. 

• Linked Data – Data (see above) which contains URIs as identifiers for concepts described in the data and URIs to identify the relationships between those concepts.  The four Linked Data Principles, as published as a design note by Tim Berners-Lee, provide a bit more detail on this.

  I am in danger of stirring the embers of a religious fire fight here, between those that believe that Linked Data must be described in RDF and contain URIs as identifiers, and those that maintain that you can have data linked across the web without those constraints.  All I am going to say on that at this time, is that the Linked Open Data cloud of data sets has been successful, based on the first of those two views. (if you want to follow that particular debate in more detail, Paul Miller’s post and associated comments would be a good starting point)

So, how can data be open, but not linked? – by publishing in in a non-Linked Data form such as a text file or a html page or a pdf.  Where would you find this? – all over the web. As encouraged by Sir Tim to give us your raw data now, and as I detailed in my previous “data publishing three-step’ post, this is often the first element of getting your data out there for others to consume.

How can data be Linked but not open? – by publishing it in accordance with the principles, in RDF, with URIs, but restricting access either by imposing restrictive licensing conditions or restricting access to the data.  Where would you find this? – again all over the web, but often hiding behind restrictive licensing terms such as “non-commercial use only”.  Also to be found inside organisational firewalls.  For example, commercial organisations can realise the benefits of  using Linked Data techniques with their internal private data.  Potentially linking it to publicly visible concepts across the web to add even more value for their employees.

Data that is Linked and Open, like that strawberry pavlova, has the power to deliver value beyond the sum of its individual ingredients.  By providing data in a form that is linked to other data, and easy for others to link to, without restrictions on who or how that linking takes place, provides the foundation for a web of linked data built on the same principles that fostered the growth of the web of documents that has so changed our world over the last decade and a half.

The ingredients that formed that World Wide Web of documents – html, http, open publishing of web sites without restrictions on other’s abilities to consume and/or link to them – individually  were important developments.  However, when those elements were blended together their effects were multiplied many fold and resulted in the web we experience today. 

So [as I stretch my culinary metaphor to it’s limits] if you are hoping to take people with you in building a Linked Open Data future, you not only have to show them a picture of the final dish, you need to describe the individual ingredients and their relevance to the eventual result.

Pictures from Flickr by PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE and avixyz