Our journey with the Index is almost coming to an end. As you know, we made some changes, including in our review approach, We don’t have country reviewer (peer to peer review) but a thematic review - one reviewer check all 120 countries in our sample.
However, in order to decrease mistakes even more, we open now the index to public comments so we can see if we made any mistakes. In the review process, every theme has its own logic in reviewing, please read it carefully before commenting, it would help you understand why your country was assessed in the way it was assessed.
Please not - we are omitting Health performance and Public transport from the final score. We will keep the data and review it. Therefore, the ranking in this link is not final or accurate to the final Index product. More info about why we omitted these datasets from the scoring, in the blog.
Please spread the word about this to government and other civil society organizations.
Hi Mor. When you say ‘comment’ do you mean using Disqus, or by clicking ‘propose revisions’? I am not seeing the ability to comment using Disqus - it only appears if there is an existing comment for a particular country’s dataset.
Great job Mor, I love how we now have thematic reviewers. This will indeed increase the efficiency and quality of the reviews. Looking forward to the final ranking but so far I’m happy in where we are with Belgium in 2015 and I am looking forward to 2016 with the new Belgian federal Open Data Policy.
@Mor, I cannot see the comment box, too. Hope the reviewers could find the following comments.
Have we come to an agreement regarding the availability issue when the sign up process is needed to use Web APIs? If we consider those APIs requiring registration publicly available, then the following datasets in South Korea should be also considered machine-readable via Web APIs:
Procurement tenders
Water quality
Weather forecast
@nealbastek, I think the weather forecast dataset of South Korea should be marked as publicly available but not openly licensed, and it’s available for free on the Website. Why did you think it’s not publicly available, not machine-readable, and unsure if it’s free?
And, the land ownership dataset of South Korea IS online, even if it’s not publicly available and requiring some browser plug-ins. Do we consider datasets requiring browser plugins (including Active X applications) not online?
Companies reviewer for the GODI here! I’ve just reviewed my first re-submitted dataset - our submitter was able to confirm that Jersey’s company data is indeed machine readable (if you pay for it), so thanks to Marcus for that. Feel free to hit me up with any questions or comments you have about company registries!
Ah thanks I searched for it but missed it!
Gotta rush then
Why on friday evening and not sunday evening: many people in the community do it voluntarily and can hardly do that during weektime
Also, there are still two categories that haven’t been reviewed for most countries, making it hard to reassess everything
Hi @RouxRC - as I wrote - We will review public transport and health separately. and they will not be part of the score. Therefore, we don’t need input on them.
From our experience, no amount of time is actually sufficient for these reviews. If you need more time, please email me. mor.rubinstien[at]okfn.org
We have one particular user on Nov 3rd who has tried to submit results in all categories, and has marked almost all key datasets 100% open. Some results are clearly contradictory to his/her submitted results. How should we resolve the issue?
Hi Mor, will global.census.okfn.org eventually be pushed to index.okfn.org? Or do we refer everyone to the global census? It’s just that outsiders still refer to the index rather than the census page.
The global.census is our survey platform. However, unlike the local census, we do push the data into a different site. In this case Index.okfn.org.
We are still working on the Index site, but we will let all of you know when it will be ready for launch and references in the next 10 days or so. Therefore, it is still good to refer to the Index.okfn site, which is the final and approved results.
It is probably too late for this, but I just noticed that the reviewer of the budget dataset has set the “open licensed” flag on Brazil to negative. The license has never changed and has been ODbL ever since it was published in 2014.
As noted in the entry submission, the dataset page has yet to be updated with the resource for 2015, but this is obviously a mistake on the dataset publisher’s part, in forgetting to add the resource, rather than a reversal in licensing policy. I have since notified them about the lack of updates to the dataset (something no one ever seems to have done) and I believe they will have this sorted out soon.
I am sorry, this is too late and the final review stage is closed. Since no one from the Brazilian community submitted data on this dataset, me and Marco Tulio submitted it, and all we found is this - https://www1.siop.planejamento.gov.br/downloads/rdf/loa2015.zip
The file does not have license in the page, so I flagged it as Not openly licensed. We do it to all submissions that does not have license in their webpage. If it was in the portal, it would have get yes for the license question. Since the index examines current publishing state, I had to refer to the zip file.
I hope that this might help the government, and will remind them to update the datasets in the portal.
Actually a mea culpa here. I’ve reviewed it and since I also didn’t see the license, I changed it. Thanks, Augusto, for pointing this out. I hope that won’t affect Brazil position that much.
I believe no one from the Brazilian community had contributed to this dataset at that point simply because there was no change in information from the previous year. If you look at the information on it from 2014 (which is still up on http://index.okfn.org/place/brazil/budget/ ), you can see it is indeed marked as openly licensed. There is even a link there pointing to the page where the open license is stated.
