Views on Open Data Business from Software Development Companies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Antti Herala, Jussi Kasurinen, and Erno Vanhala in the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research: “The main concept of open data and its application is simple; access to the publicly-funded data provides greater returns from the public investment and can generate wealth through the downstream use of outputs, such as traffic information or weather forecast services. However, even though open data and data sharing as concepts are forty years old with the open data initiative reaching ten, the practical actions and applications have tended to stay on the superficial level, and significant progress or success stories are hard to find. The current trend is that the governments and municipalities are opening their data, but the impact and usefulness of raw open data repositories to citizens – and even to businesses – can be questioned Besides the governments, a handful of private organizations are opening their data in an attempt to unlock the economic value of open data, but even they have difficulties finding innovative usage, let alone generate additional profit.

In a previous study it was found that companies are interested in open data and that this mindset spans over different industries, from both publicly available data to the private business-to-business data access. Open data is not only a resource for software companies, but also for traditional engineering industries and even for small, nonfranchised local markets and shops. In our previous study, it was established that there is evidence  on recognizing the applicability of open data, and opening the data to the clients by private organizations leads to business opportunities, creating new value.

However, while there is interest towards open data in a wide variety of businesses, the question still remains whether or not open data is actually used to generate income or are there some other sharing methods in use that are more efficient and more profitable.

For this study, four research questions were formulated. The first three are concentrating on the usage of open data as well as the interest towards opening or sharing data and the fourth research question revolves around the different types of openness:

  • How do new clients express interest towards open data?
  • What kind of open data-based solutions is the existing clientele expecting?
  • How does the product portfolio of a software company respond to open data?
  • What are the current trends of open initiatives?…(More)”.

The Modern Research Data Portal: a design pattern for networked, data-intensive science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 et al in PeerJ Computer Science: “We describe best practices for providing convenient, high-speed, secure access to large data via research data portals. We capture these best practices in a new design pattern, the Modern Research Data Portal, that disaggregates the traditional monolithic web-based data portal to achieve orders-of-magnitude increases in data transfer performance, support new deployment architectures that decouple control logic from data storage, and reduce development and operations costs.

We introduce the design pattern; explain how it leverages high-performance data enclaves and cloud-based data management services; review representative examples at research laboratories and universities, including both experimental facilities and supercomputer sites; describe how to leverage Python APIs for authentication, authorization, data transfer, and data sharing; and use coding examples to demonstrate how these APIs can be used to implement a range of research data portal capabilities. Sample code at a companion web site, https://docs.globus.org/mrdp, provides application skeletons that readers can adapt to realize their own research data portals….(More)”.

Rights-Based and Tech-Driven: Open Data, Freedom of Information, and the Future of Government Transparency

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Beth Noveck at the Yale Human Rights and Development Journal: “Open data policy mandates that government proactively publish its data online for the public to reuse. It is a radically different approach to transparency than traditional right-to-know strategies as embodied in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) legislation in that it involves ex ante rather than ex post disclosure of whole datasets. Although both open data and FOIA deal with information sharing, the normative essence of open data is participation rather than litigation. By fostering public engagement, open data shifts the relationship between state and citizen from a monitorial to a collaborative one, centered around using information to solve problems together. This Essay explores the theory and practice of open data in comparison to FOIA and highlights its uses as a tool for advancing human rights, saving lives, and strengthening democracy. Although open data undoubtedly builds upon the fifty-year legal tradition of the right to know about the workings of one’s government, open data does more than advance government accountability. Rather, it is a distinctly twenty-first century governing practice borne out of the potential of big data to help solve society’s biggest problems. Thus, this Essay charts a thoughtful path toward a twenty-first century transparency regime that takes advantage of and blends the strengths of open data’s collaborative and innovation-centric approach and the adversarial and monitorial tactics of freedom of information regimes….(More)”.

Extracting crowd intelligence from pervasive and social big data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction by Leye Wang, Vincent Gauthier, Guanling Chen and Luis Moreira-Matias of Special Issue of the Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing: “With the prevalence of ubiquitous computing devices (smartphones, wearable devices, etc.) and social network services (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), humans are generating massive digital traces continuously in their daily life. Considering the invaluable crowd intelligence residing in these pervasive and social big data, a spectrum of opportunities is emerging to enable promising smart applications for easing individual life, increasing company profit, as well as facilitating city development. However, the nature of big data also poses fundamental challenges on the techniques and applications relying on the pervasive and social big data from multiple perspectives such as algorithm effectiveness, computation speed, energy efficiency, user privacy, server security, data heterogeneity and system scalability. This special issue presents the state-of-the-art research achievements in addressing these challenges. After the rigorous review process of reviewers and guest editors, eight papers were accepted as follows.

The first paper “Automated recognition of hypertension through overnight continuous HRV monitoring” by Ni et al. proposes a non-invasive way to differentiate hypertension patients from healthy people with the pervasive sensors such as a waist belt. To this end, the authors train a machine learning model based on the heart rate data sensed from waists worn by a crowd of people, and the experiments show that the detection accuracy is around 93%.

The second paper “The workforce analyzer: group discovery among LinkedIn public profiles” by Dai et al. describes two users’ group discovery methods among LinkedIn public profiles. One is based on K-means and another is based on SVM. The authors contrast results of both methods and provide insights about the trending professional orientations of the workforce from an online perspective.

The third paper “Tweet and followee personalized recommendations based on knowledge graphs” by Pla Karidi et al. present an efficient semantic recommendation method that helps users filter the Twitter stream for interesting content. The foundation of this method is a knowledge graph that can represent all user topics of interest as a variety of concepts, objects, events, persons, entities, locations and the relations between them. An important advantage of the authors’ method is that it reduces the effects of problems such as over-recommendation and over-specialization.

The fourth paper “CrowdTravel: scenic spot profiling by using heterogeneous crowdsourced data” by Guo et al. proposes CrowdTravel, a multi-source social media data fusion approach for multi-aspect tourism information perception, which can provide travelling assistance for tourists by crowd intelligence mining. Experiments over a dataset of several popular scenic spots in Beijing and Xi’an, China, indicate that the authors’ approach attains fine-grained characterization for the scenic spots and delivers excellent performance.

The fifth paper “Internet of Things based activity surveillance of defence personnel” by Bhatia et al. presents a comprehensive IoT-based framework for analyzing national integrity of defence personnel with consideration to his/her daily activities. Specifically, Integrity Index Value is defined for every defence personnel based on different social engagements, and activities for detecting the vulnerability to national security. In addition to this, a probabilistic decision tree based automated decision making is presented to aid defence officials in analyzing various activities of a defence personnel for his/her integrity assessment.

The sixth paper “Recommending property with short days-on-market for estate agency” by Mou et al. proposes an estate with short days-on-market appraisal framework to automatically recommend those estates using transaction data and profile information crawled from websites. Both the spatial and temporal characteristics of an estate are integrated into the framework. The results show that the proposed framework can estimate accurately about 78% estates.

The seventh paper “An anonymous data reporting strategy with ensuring incentives for mobile crowd-sensing” by Li et al. proposes a system and a strategy to ensure anonymous data reporting while ensuring incentives simultaneously. The proposed protocol is arranged in five stages that mainly leverage three concepts: (1) slot reservation based on shuffle, (2) data submission based on bulk transfer and multi-player dc-nets, and (3) incentive mechanism based on blind signature.

The last paper “Semantic place prediction from crowd-sensed mobile phone data” by Celik et al. semantically classifes places visited by smart phone users utilizing the data collected from sensors and wireless interfaces available on the phones as well as phone usage patterns, such as battery level, and time-related information, with machine learning algorithms. For this study, the authors collect data from 15 participants at Galatasaray University for 1 month, and try different classification algorithms such as decision tree, random forest, k-nearest neighbour, naive Bayes, and multi-layer perceptron….(More)”.

Appropriating technology for accountability

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Research report by Rosie McGee with Duncan Edwards, Colin Anderson, Hannah Hudson and Francesca Feruglio: “Making All Voices Count was a programme designed to solve the ‘grand challenge’ of creating more effective democratic governance and accountability around the world. Conceived in an era of optimism about the use of tech to open up government and allow more fluid communication between citizens and governments, it used funding from four donors to support the development and spread of innovative ideas for solving governance problems – many of them involving tools and platforms based on mobile phone and web technologies. Between 2013 and 2017, the programme made grants for innovation and scaling projects that aimed to amplify the voices of citizens and enable governments to listen and respond. It also conducted research and issued research grants to explore the roles that technology can play in securing responsive, accountable government.

This synthesis report reviews the Making All Voices Count’s four-and-a-half years of operational experience and learning. In doing so, it revisits and assesses the key working assumptions and expectations about the roles that technologies can play in governance, which underpinned the programme at the outset. The report draws on a synthesis of evidence from Making All Voices Count’s 120+ research, evidence and learning-focused publications, and the insights and knowledge that arose from the innovation, scaling and research projects funded through the programme, and the related grant accompaniment activities.

It shares 14 key messages on the roles technologies can play in enabling citizen voice and accountable and responsive governance. These messages are presented in four sections:

  • Applying technologies as technical fixes to solve service delivery problems
  • Applying technologies to broader, systemic governance challenges
  • Applying technologies to build the foundations of democratic and accountable governance systems
  • Applying technologies for the public ‘bad’.

The research concludes that the tech optimism of the era in which the programme was conceived can now be reappraised from the better-informed vantage point of hindsight. Making All Voices Count’s wealth of diverse and grounded experience and documentation provides an evidence base that should enable a more sober and mature position of tech realism as the field of tech for accountable governance continues to evolve….(More)”.

The Future Computed: Artificial Intelligence and its role in society

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Brad Smith at the Microsoft Blog: “Today Microsoft is releasing a new book, The Future Computed: Artificial Intelligence and its role in society. The two of us have written the foreword for the book, and our teams collaborated to write its contents. As the title suggests, the book provides our perspective on where AI technology is going and the new societal issues it has raised.

On a personal level, our work on the foreword provided an opportunity to step back and think about how much technology has changed our lives over the past two decades and to consider the changes that are likely to come over the next 20 years. In 1998, we both worked at Microsoft, but on opposite sides of the globe. While we lived on separate continents and in quite different cultures, we shared similar experiences and daily routines which were managed by manual planning and movement. Twenty years later, we take for granted the digital world that was once the stuff of science fiction.

Technology – including mobile devices and cloud computing – has fundamentally changed the way we consume news, plan our day, communicate, shop and interact with our family, friends and colleagues. Two decades from now, what will our world look like? At Microsoft, we imagine that artificial intelligence will help us do more with one of our most precious commodities: time. By 2038, personal digital assistants will be trained to anticipate our needs, help manage our schedule, prepare us for meetings, assist as we plan our social lives, reply to and route communications, and drive cars.

Beyond our personal lives, AI will enable breakthrough advances in areas like healthcare, agriculture, education and transportation. It’s already happening in impressive ways.

But as we’ve witnessed over the past 20 years, new technology also inevitably raises complex questions and broad societal concerns. As we look to a future powered by a partnership between computers and humans, it’s important that we address these challenges head on.

How do we ensure that AI is designed and used responsibly? How do we establish ethical principles to protect people? How should we govern its use? And how will AI impact employment and jobs?

To answer these tough questions, technologists will need to work closely with government, academia, business, civil society and other stakeholders. At Microsoft, we’ve identified six ethical principles – fairness, reliability and safety, privacy and security, inclusivity, transparency, and accountability – to guide the cross-disciplinary development and use of artificial intelligence. The better we understand these or similar issues — and the more technology developers and users can share best practices to address them — the better served the world will be as we contemplate societal rules to govern AI.

We must also pay attention to AI’s impact on workers. What jobs will AI eliminate? What jobs will it create? If there has been one constant over 250 years of technological change, it has been the ongoing impact of technology on jobs — the creation of new jobs, the elimination of existing jobs and the evolution of job tasks and content. This too is certain to continue.

Some key conclusions are emerging….

The Future Computed is available here and additional content related to the book can be found here.”

On democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sophie in ‘t Veld (European Parliament) in a Special Issue of Internet Policy Review on Political micro-targeting edited by Balazs Bodo, Natali Helberger and Claes de Vreese: “Democracy is valuable and vulnerable, which is reason enough to remain alert for new developments that can undermine her. In recent months, we have seen enough examples of the growing impact of personal data in campaigns and elections. It is important and urgent for us to publicly debate this development. It is easy to see why we should take action against extremist propaganda of hatemongers aiming to recruit young people for violent acts. But we euphemistically speak of ‘fake news’ when lies, ‘half-truths’, conspiracy theories, and sedition creepily poison public opinion.

The literal meaning of democracy is ‘the power of the people’. ‘Power’ presupposes freedom. Freedom to choose and to decide. Freedom from coercion and pressure. Freedom from manipulation. ‘Power’ also presupposes knowledge. Knowledge of all facts, aspects, and options. And knowing how to balance them against each other. When freedom and knowledge are restricted, there can be no power.

In a democracy, every individual choice influences society as a whole. Therefore, the common interest is served with everyone’s ability to make their choices in complete freedom, and with complete knowledge.

The interests of parties and political candidates who compete for citizen’s votes may differ from that higher interest. They want citizens to see their political advertising, and only theirs, not that of their competitors. Not only do parties and candidates compete for the voter’s favour. They contend for his exclusive time and attention as well.

POLITICAL TARGETING

No laws dictate what kind of information a voter should rely on to be able to make the right consideration. For lamb chops, toothpaste, mortgages or cars, for example, it’s mandatory for producers to mention the origin and properties. This enables consumers to make a responsible decision. Providing false information is illegal. All ingredients, properties, and risks have to be mentioned on the label.

Political communication, however, is protected by freedom of speech. Political parties are allowed to use all kinds of sales tricks.

And, of course, campaigns do their utmost and continuously test the limits of the socially acceptable….(More)”.

Data-Intensive Approaches To Creating Innovation For Sustainable Smart Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Science Trends: “Located at the complex intersection of economic development and environmental change, cities play a central role in our efforts to move towards sustainability. Reducing air and water pollution, improving energy efficiency while securing energy supply, and minimizing vulnerabilities to disruptions and disturbances are interconnected and pose a formidable challenge, with their dynamic interactions changing in highly complex and unpredictable manners….

The Beijing City Lab demonstrates the usefulness of open urban data in mapping urbanization with a fine spatiotemporal scale and reflecting social and environmental dimensions of urbanization through visualization at multiple scales.

The basic principle of open data will generate significant opportunities for promoting inter-disciplinary and inter-organizational research, producing new data sets through the integration of different sources, avoiding duplication of research, facilitating the verification of previous results, and encouraging citizen scientists and crowdsourcing approaches. Open data also is expected to help governments promote transparency, citizen participation, and access to information in policy-making processes.

Despite a significant potential, however, there still remain numerous challenges in facilitating innovation for urban sustainability through open data. The scope and amount of data collected and shared are still limited, and the quality control, error monitoring, and cleaning of open data is also indispensable in securing the reliability of the analysis. Also, the organizational and legal frameworks of data sharing platforms are often not well-defined or established, and it is critical to address the interoperability between various data standards, balance between open and proprietary data, and normative and legal issues such as the data ownership, personal privacy, confidentiality, law enforcement, and the maintenance of public safety and national security….

These findings are described in the article entitled Facilitating data-intensive approaches to innovation for sustainability: opportunities and challenges in building smart cities, published in the journal Sustainability Science. This work was led by Masaru Yarime from the City University of Hong Kong….(More)”.

When census taking is a recipe for controversy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Anjana Ahuja in the Financial Times: “Population counts are important tools for development, but also politically fraught…The UN describes a census as “among the most complex and massive peacetime exercises a nation undertakes”. Given that social trends, migration patterns and inequalities can be determined from questions that range from health to wealth, housing and even religious beliefs, censuses can also be controversial. So it is with the next one in the US, due to be conducted in 2020. The US Department of Justice has proposed that participants should be quizzed on their citizenship status. Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, warned the journal Science that many would refuse to take part. Ms Gupta said that, in the current political climate, enquiring about citizenship “would destroy any chance of an accurate count, discard years of careful research and increase costs significantly”.

The row has taken on a new urgency because the 2020 census must be finalised by April. The DoJ claims that a citizenship question will ensure that ethnic minorities are treated fairly in the voting process. Currently, only about one in six households is asked about citizenship, with the results extrapolated for the whole population, a process observers say is statistically acceptable and less intrusive. In 2011, the census for England and Wales asked for country of birth and passports held — but not citizenship explicitly. It is one of those curious cases when fewer questions might lead to more accurate and useful data….(More)”.

Why the deliberative democracy framework doesn’t quite work for me

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Peter Levine: “In some ways, I came of age in the field of deliberative democracy. I had an internship at the Kettering Foundation when I was a college sophomore (when the foundation defined itself more purely in deliberative terms than it does today). By that time, I had already taken a philosophy seminar on the great deliberative theorist Jürgen Habermas. In the three decades since then, I’ve served on the boards of Kettering, Everyday Democracy, and AmericaSPEAKS. I wrote a book with “deliberative democracy” in its subtitle and co-edited The Deliberative Democracy Handbook with John Gastil. I was one of many co-founders of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and have served on its steering committee since the last century.

None of these groups is committed to deliberation in a narrow sense (although opinions differ within the field). For me, these are the main limitations of focusing on deliberation as the central topic or unit of analysis:

Deliberative values are worthy ones, but they are not the only worthy ones. My own values would also include personal liberties and nonnegotiable rights, concerns for nature, and virtues of the inner life, such as equanimity and personal development. Stating my values doesn’t substitute for an argument, but it may suffice to make the point that deliberation is not the only good thing, and it’s in tension with other goods. A deliberative democrat will reply that I should discuss my values with other people. And so I should–but that doesn’t mean that the norms intrinsic to deliberation trump all other norms. Nor are fellow citizens the only sources of guidance; introspecting, reading ancient texts, consulting legal precedents, and conducting scientific experiments are helpful, too.

By the same token, deliberative virtues are not the only civic virtues. Deliberation is about discourse–talking and listening–so its virtues are discursive ones: humility and openness, empathy, sincerity, and perhaps eloquence. (The list is contested.) But a good citizen may be hard-working, physically courageous, or aesthetically creative instead of especially good at deliberating. The people who physically built the Athenian agora were as important as the people who exchanged ideas in it.

Deliberation depends on social organization. In order for people to have something that’s worth discussing, they must already make, control, or influence things of value together. That requires social organization, whether in the form of a market, a commons, a voluntary association, a functional network, or a political institution. Discussion rarely precedes these forms, because people can’t and won’t come together in completely amorphous groupings. Discussion is more typically a moment in an ongoing process of governance. Often a small group of founders chooses the rules-in-use that create a group in which deliberation can occur.

Thus we should ask about leadership and rules, not just about deliberation….(More)”.