Feedback from day two: was mostly procedural (or what one delegate called ‘hygiene’ issues):
The goldfish bowl approach to debate?
Pro votes: 2. Anti votes: 1 Pro points: you know where the debate is coming from. Anti points: It’s against the spirit of an unconference; makes it hard to contribute; in principle you can signal that you want to take part or step out, but can you, actually?
Continue reading The nuts and bolts of open data camp 3: a group review
WARNING – liveblogging. Prone to error, inaccuracy and howling affronts to grammar and syntax. Posts will be improved over the next 48 hours
Google doc of this session
How do we evaluate the impact of open data – and prove its worth? A debate at Open Data Camp 3 dived deep into the issues – and came up with a few solutions.
Firstly, getting feedback on data sets seems to a real problem. It’s really hard to get feedback on data other than “that address is wrong”.
Sian from the Food Standards Agency would love to know what people are doing – and building – with their data. And it’s not just about proving commercial value, it’s also about persuading other departments and building the case for open data. Can we build up an armoury of cases to persuade people?
Continue reading Evaluating open data: how do you prove the value?