3 ms·
OK, we disagree. Except that #4 IS sort of redundant, though I want to make the point that data is almost impossible for a layperson, and still really hard for
by wsprague 17y ago
OK, we disagree. Except that #4 IS sort of redundant, though I want to make the point that data is almost impossible for a layperson, and still really hard for a practiced analyst.
- jfager 17y agoI actually meant it when I said I didn't understand what you were getting at. I initially read it as you saying that there shouldn't be a data.gov at all (because raw data's useless, curated data's expensive and difficult, and simplified data summaries are likely to be misinterpreted by lay people), but that can't be right, so I'm really curious what you were actually trying to say. What would an ideal data.gov look like, to you?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- bbgm 17y agoThat's in a perfect world. The first step is to get the data out there. They we can start wondering about structure and presentation. It takes a long time to build a data infrastructure, but you should stop people who have the skills and interest from getting their hands on it. Hopefully data.gov will work with data producers to become a quality data resource, but at least there is a resource in the first place, a place to go and find material. Perhaps a model might be people starting from data.gov and then creating different views into the data for different purposes. They don't have to reside on data.gov, and personally that's what I hope the site evolves to. Making data available in reasonable formats that can then be converted into information by other people.
- wsprague 17y agoI moved my reply to my top comment and screwed up the reply tree here. So this is for the comment that follows this one: data.gov is fundamentally flawed, and won't be anything but annoying until it is reworked into something along the lines of what I suggest. Or so I think...