Adrian Cunningham’s post on digital archives on the Gov2.0 Taskforce website is a timely reminder of the practical challenges that lie ahead of the Government in making the transition from analogue to digital archiving. In doing so Adrian reinforces the point that with this transition to digital, the benefits lie not just in records being more searchable and accessible, but the immense value of being able to use meta-data to cross-reference and re-purpose information: information that would in isolation only tell one story. However, when mashed up with other datasets, can bring new substance, meaning, insights, knowledge and engagement to those who access it.
Adrian references “Mapping Our Anzacs”, a wonderfully innovative web site developed by Dr Tim Sherratt et al at the NAA, which he describes thus:
For instance, the National Archives of Australia’s Mapping our Anzacs site mashes digitised copies of World War 1 service records and their archival metadata with geospatial metadata to provide a whole new means of access to and navigation of these popular records. In addition, a scrapbook facility allows users to upload their own family history information, hyperlinks and digitised records relating to the individual concerned – thus creating a much more valuable set of historical resources.
Mapping Our Anzacs is a good example of how this website becomes the platform for citizen’s participation in the telling of our history. The National Archive enables this participation by having facilitated innovative use of existing information datasets and resources. This enabling role that government agencies can play, as exemplified by the NAA with Mapping Our Anzacs, constitutes a significant element of the Gov2.0 potential: government providing the platform for meaningful community activity and engagement.
This concept of Government as the platform was explored in some depth by Tim O’Reilly (he who “watches the alpha geeks” to determine tech trends) In a guest blog on the web site leading up to the recently held Gov2.0 Expo Showcase and Gov2.0 Summit in Washington DC, USA makes the following observation:
But as with Web 2.0, the real secret of success in Government 2.0 is thinking about government as a platform. If there’s one thing we learn from the technology industry, it’s that every big winner has been a platform company: someone whose success has enabled others, who’ve built on their work and multiplied its impact.
This US Gov.2.0 Expo and Summit has served timely purpose in shifting the public discussion to the next level with O’Reilly arguing
“government is a convener and an enabler–ultimately, it is a vehicle for coordinating the collective action of citizens… That’s Government 2.0: technology helping build the kind of government the nation’s founders intended: of, for and by the people”.
This thinking has permeated the Obama administration well and truly I was inspired by the US Federal CIO Vivek Kundra’s www.data.gov website which describes its purpose: to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
This US Government web site provides the tools for online social entrepreneurs to embark on their own innovation journey with public datasets. Illustrations of the type of applications that could be developed include Everyblock and Stumblesafely which use government crime statistics and combine them with geo-spatial data and turn them into public safety applications for the Web or iPhone.
Going back to Gov2.0 taking the government forward as the ‘platform’, a critical first step will be releasing the datasets in a form that allows mash ups to occur. I know the Gov2.0 Taskforce members are aware of this, as it sits at the heart of a serious and meaningful approach to Gov2.0.
And it’s not like we don’t have our very home grown data mash-up web site, courtesy of the NSW Government!
These issues all got a thorough work out during the publicsphere on Gov2.0 and are reflected in the Gov 2.0 Briefing Paper the section on facilitating private and public innovation. The public sphere makes a series of policy recommendations relating to permissive copyright, open standards, (including metadata), open API’s and open access to public information datasets unless there are security or privacy reasons not to.
Please note: I am a member of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council and Adrian Cunningham is both a member of the Govt 2.0 taskforce the Director, Strategic Relations and Personal Records at the NAA.
6 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
I completely agree, however the example of Mapping our Anzacs is not a good one, as it is not an innovative community use of a government data platform, but an innovative government use of a private platform (Google Maps).
Does anyone know of examples of innovative private uses of government data?
What do you mean of private uses of government data?
Mapping our ANZACS did use Google Maps, and used information contributed by a lot of individuals, but it also drew on a lot of government data (historical records and the like), so it was a nice facilitated mashup
The NAA is a public agency, and it created a mashup using data which was not open. The data is restricted to that project, even if it was available elsewhere (i.e. by requesting it from the archives). It is not possible for a private individual to create another mashup based on that data, so it is not a platform for innovation, its just an innovation.
Yes, it enables a citizen to explore an information set (and its interesting and fun and cool), but its participation is pretty limited, and it does not enable FURTHER innovation, like a platform should.
So my point was that, even though it has a higher potential for participation, it didn’t illustrate the concept of the government-enabled platform for innovation outlined in the rest of the post
All very true technically. All praise to Obama and indeed most Australian governments for pushing the growth of web 2.0 services.
BUT governments or should I say administrations are poor places to be platforms for innovation. As the DNA of governments of the day are first to self presevation and advancement. This is not bad thing per say, just WILL and does influence any information platform that is within it’s domain of direct influence.
Government’s too don’t operate in the same risk and reward sphere as the rest of us. So any failure is covered up and any success is quickly consumed by political hitch hikers. Both are mostly dead ends with huge dead debt and no learning attached.
The current surge of social entreprenuers would be best served by having full and enhanced access to data without any political strings attached and l left to actually getting out into the market place of citizens and selling / creating value.
Hi Dave, we (in Kate’s office) are all in agreement with open data with no strings
I don’t think Kate is saying that innovation will all happen in government, as we know things can move pretty slowly sometimes. Having said that, the idea that government providing a platform (such as our Public Sphere initiative) for citizens to be part of the process, to be part of the decisions made is a compelling one. That the data needs to be open goes without saying, and nothing in this or other posts of Kate precludes independent innovation by private interests or the general public.
Also, she has spoken a lot about the importance of transparency, which starts to deal with the concerns you have.
I agree with Kate that in doing what government has to do anyway, in the delivery of services and and service to the citizens, there is an opportunity to be a platform for innovation by providing open tools, open access and open participation such that government and interested communities can innovate in partnership.
Mapping our ANZACS was a good example of government providing a lot of data, plus open tools and access, combined with the efforts of interested citizens to create something really wonderful, in partnership.
Senator as much I luvyawork… Anything the Govt does at the moment in this space has a hollow ring to it, whilst they pursue a mandatory Internet filter. The main threat to our industry right now is your Govt’s filter. I’d like to see efforts in equipping our libraries & empowering individuals to have online confidence rather than the politics of fear that we are now seeing. I know you understand this & I wish you every success. Feel free not to publish