4 ms·

I was reacting to TeMPOraL in that way because it felt like there was some kind of entitlement for the data. Public entities ow the data to nobody and especial

by LunaSea 12y ago

I was reacting to TeMPOraL in that way because it felt like there was some kind of entitlement for the data. Public entities ow the data to nobody and especially not to companies. For sure, it would be great if city administrations and public entities did have some kind of API but the overhead would be just too big to justify the cost. Having commercial partners for those APIs would be one way to fund it but I don't think that it would be a sustainable model world-wide.

maxerickson 12y ago
I disagree, public entities owe the data to their users. (especially if we are talking about entities that receive government funding or offer a public service under some limited license) I think my attitude is widespread: https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/ https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/ https://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds https://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicF... That's a Google effort, but it is pragmatic, it opens the data for more than just Google.
- LunaSea 12y ago
  I agree with the idea that the data should be open to the public. Research funded by public grants should be in the same category as well. But as a developer I know how quickly the technologies and developer needs change. There are often threads on the front page of HN and /r/programming about the technology turnover being too quick. From this practical point of view I find it difficult to see how an public entity could justify funding for stuff like this. Also using companies like Google as an example for data-openness is not the best argument. API bait-and-switches are just too common these days.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Technology turnover is irrelevant, programmers are well used to extracting data from old systems. Anything good nowadays will be good enough in 20 years (e.g. XML is from '98, and still vastly used).
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I didn't use Google as an example, I used that particular effort as an example. It involves dozens of transit providers opening their data, with no intermediate reliance on Google. As far as the spending, the public entity already has to have some sort of record of their scheduling. The justification for sharing it is simply that making things easier to use increases use of them. Perhaps that isn't the case, but it shouldn't take months of time to set up a system to dump an existing database, so for systems with thousands of users it should not be a significant expense.
icebraining 12y ago
Public entities owe the data to the public. For those of us living in the EU, there even are multiple directives mandating it for various kinds of public entities and data.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by LunaSea 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

I disagree, public entities owe the data to their users. (especially if we are talking about entities that receive government funding or offer a public service under some limited license) I think my attitude is widespread: https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/ https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/ https://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds https://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicF... That's a Google effort, but it is pragmatic, it opens the data for more than just Google.

LunaSea 12y ago
I agree with the idea that the data should be open to the public. Research funded by public grants should be in the same category as well. But as a developer I know how quickly the technologies and developer needs change. There are often threads on the front page of HN and /r/programming about the technology turnover being too quick. From this practical point of view I find it difficult to see how an public entity could justify funding for stuff like this. Also using companies like Google as an example for data-openness is not the best argument. API bait-and-switches are just too common these days.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Technology turnover is irrelevant, programmers are well used to extracting data from old systems. Anything good nowadays will be good enough in 20 years (e.g. XML is from '98, and still vastly used).
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I didn't use Google as an example, I used that particular effort as an example. It involves dozens of transit providers opening their data, with no intermediate reliance on Google. As far as the spending, the public entity already has to have some sort of record of their scheduling. The justification for sharing it is simply that making things easier to use increases use of them. Perhaps that isn't the case, but it shouldn't take months of time to set up a system to dump an existing database, so for systems with thousands of users it should not be a significant expense.

icebraining 12y ago

Public entities owe the data to the public. For those of us living in the EU, there even are multiple directives mandating it for various kinds of public entities and data.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]