You are browsing the archive for 2019 April.

OpenGLAM Principles: ways forward to Open Access for cultural heritage

- April 30, 2019 in Featured, Front Page, OpenGLAM, principles

OpenGLAM? In the early 2010s, OpenGLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) was set up: a network that supports exchange and collaboration between cultural institutions that support Open Access. OpenGLAM is an initiative and working group of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN), currently known as Open Knowledge International, and was co-funded by the European Commission. Creative Commons, the Communia Association and the GLAM-Wiki community were […]

Abide With Me (1914)

- April 30, 2019 in Uncategorized

Version from Olive Kline and Elsie Baker of one of the most popular hymn's of all time.

Abide With Me (1914)

- April 30, 2019 in abide with me, brixham, death, English riviera, hymn, napoleon, Reverend Henry Francis Lyte, titanic, tuberculosis

Version from Olive Kline and Elsie Baker of one of the most popular hymn's of all time.

Publishing Budget and Spending Open Data

- April 29, 2019 in Uncategorized

This blog was written by Lorena Rivero del Paso (GIFT) and Oscar Montiel (Open Knowledge International) and was originally posted on the GIFT blog.

Increasingly, we see examples where lack of transparency and accountability from governments affects trust. Being able to follow public money flows is an important step to recover trust and aim towards more effective governance of public funds. Despite this, according to the most recent edition of the Open Data Barometer, the number of national governments that publish their budget and spending reports and figures as data isn’t growing consistently.

Considering the lack of progress in such publication and the relevance of fiscal data, from Open Knowledge International (OKI) and Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) we have partnered to support governments in the publication of budget and spending open data, through the Open Fiscal Data Package (OFDP). This specification allows publishers to structure their data in a way that makes its description and use as easy as possible and provides visualizations and developer tools for publishers and users with the OpenSpending platform.

As a follow up to the -Towards a schema for spending Open Data, Helpdesk included-blog post where you can read more in detail about the characteristics of the (OFDP), in this post we will guide you through, for a successful publication.

First: what information is expected in a budget/spending file?

Any budget and spending open dataset should have four basic components 1) fiscal year presented 2) budget classifications 3) source of funding and 4) amounts for each stage of the transaction. Additionally, the dataset can be complemented with other relevant data and classifications included in the Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS).

1) Period

  • Fiscal Year- The fiscal year is the framework in which the approved budget is executed. While some countries have already developed the annual budget within a multiyear perspective, through the preparation of medium-term fiscal and budget frameworks, these frameworks are usually established at a higher level of disaggregation than the annual budget and expenditures.

The dataset can include several past and future years according to data availability. For this, each fiscal year can be a separate dataset.

2) Budget classifications

Regarding the second component, budget classifications, we refer to those indicated in the Fiscal Transparency Code of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, for those countries who have progressed in incorporating program classification, it should be included as well. These are:

  • Administrative unit (government ministries/agencies and departments/divisions within agencies).
  • Economic type (“inputs” such as salaries, transfers, other non-salary current expenditures, capital spending) (following the international classification if available)
  • Functional and subfunctions (following the international classification if available)
  • Program/subprogram/activity/project; alternatively outcomes and/or outputs.

Some of these are cross-classifications, mainly in respect of the Program classification.

3) Source of funding

It serves to distinguish, in the financial statements, the origin of the domestically- financed expenditures (on-budget, extra-budgetary, counterpart fund), as well as from project aid financed expenditures.

4) Stages of the transaction

For the stage of the transaction, there is not a unique form of registration, but it is important to register clearly the type of data presented and which phase of the budget the user is looking at. The Expenditure Control: Key Features, Stages, and Actors[1] identify the next seven typical stages of the expenditure cycle, which should be considered for the dataset, according to the availability in the country:

  • Authorization of expenditure- A fundamental principle of public finance is that expenditure and revenue proposals must be legally authorized to ensure accountability.
  • Apportionment of authorization for specific periods and spending units- The purpose of apportionment is to prevent spending agencies from incurring obligations at a rate which would require the authorization of additional funds for the fiscal year in progress.
  • Reservation- Once the apportionment of expenditure authorization is made and the spending authority has been released, some countries’ Public Financial Management (PFM) systems include a stage at which funds are reserved for a specifically known expense but for which no contract has yet been issued. At this stage, there is no legal commitment, but it is known that the expense will be incurred during the budget year and, therefore, the reserved funds should not be used for other activities.
  • Commitment- The commitment stage is the point at which a potential future obligation to pay is established. A commitment occurs when a formal action, such as placing an order or awarding a contract, is taken that renders the government liable to pay at some time in the future when the order or contract is honoured by its counterpart.
  • Verification (or certification)- after goods have been delivered and/or services have been rendered by a supplier, an authorized officer within the spending unit concerned verifies their conformity with the contract or order, and that liability and due date of payment are recognized.
  • Payment order- Once checks are made to ensure that all previously stipulated controls have been performed and documented, a payment order is issued.
  • Payment- Once a payment order has been issued, payments are made through various instruments including checks, electronic funds transfer (EFT), and sometimes cash, in of a supplier or other recipient to discharge the liability. In line with internationally accepted good practice, the payment should be made through a Treasury Single Account (TSA) system- 

5) Additional data and classifications

  • Geographic classification-

A representation of which part of the country benefits from each of the government financial operations. This classification is difficult in most cases, so adaptations have taken the form of classifying by location of administrative units, taxpayers, recipients of government transfers, among others.

  • Investment projects-

Authorized public investment projects, including Public-Private Partnerships, if available. Data over these projects can be paired with geolocation by including its latitude and longitude. Furthermore, if more data is available in the Ministry of Finance systems, such as description or links cost-benefit analysis among others, we can analyze on a case to case basis.

  • Contracts-

Between 15 and 25 per cent of public expenditures are exercised through contracts. These data is useful data for complete traceability of the related part of the transactions. The number and detailed data of the procurement process and/or the awarded contract can be included as part of the file. If the Country has already implemented the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS), an additional column can be included with the Open Contacting ID (OCID), linking both data structures without the need for duplicating data (Learn more about the OCDS here). The information on contracts in a standardised form will also allow us to link beneficiaries of these contracts and where the money goes.

Second: Structure of the Dataset

Disaggregation

The classifications should be disaggregated to the lowest level available so users can do a more specific use of the data.

Codes and descriptions

All of the classifications mentioned in the section above should always include one column for the code and one for the description for each level of disaggregation as displayed in the example below. These fields will allow the users to know what bits of the budget the dataset refers to. A clear data structure will allow the users to understand the different levels of the budget, how the programs, projects, etc are built and how money is allocated to them in the different stages of the budget.

Having these IDs and descriptions clear, will also allow mapping to the specification in a way that will later make it easy to visualise and navigate the data set once it is uploaded to the Open Fiscal Data Package.

The following image exemplifies the structure of ID + Description of the different levels of economic classification.

Horizontal structure

After analyzing use cases of the dataset and overseeing users interact with different structures, for the stages of the transaction it has been defined that each stage should be structured in one column (the other option is one column for all stages and only one column with amounts).

Third: Extension of the file

It’s common for budget or spending reports to be PDF files directly from the data. This might be easy to read for a human, but it’s not very easy to process by a computer. This is why data uploaded to OpenSpending should be produced or saved in a comma separated value (CSV) file. A CSV is the simplest machine-readable file that requires no special software to be used, like XLS that requires Excel or similar programs. It’s very light and allows you to use software that your computer may already have to start working with it. A CSV can be managed with scripts but it’s also very friendly for beginners to navigate, filter and modify without specific knowledge about databases.

You can see an example of the data from Mexico’s Federal Government below.

We have also prepared a data template where you can see the classifications and other data that will ensure quality data being published.

Fourth: Uploading the dataset using OFDP?

There are two ways of getting your budget data into OpenSpending. Both are available to everyone and can be tried today. We will discuss the two options and then compare under which circumstances you can best use which approach.

1. Upload directly with OS Packager

If you have a budget file already available as a tabular file in CSV form, you have everything you need to start using the Packager. You just need to create an account hereand you will be able to start uploading the data. If you have already published data using CKAN or any other open data platform, you can link directly to the CSV and start working with that data.

The packager tool divides the publication task into 4 steps:

  1. Data upload
  2. Data mapping/description
  3. Metadata input
  4. Data use

Each of these steps will guide you and in the end, you will have a data package. That is, a CSV file with the fields you originally had, as well as a JSON file with the description of these fields, mapped to the specification. This can be directly used in the OpenSpending Viewer.

2. Set up an Open Spending pipeline

While moving towards a more timely and disaggregated publication that would in turn be more useful for the users, there are different kinds of needs than for one time publishers. For example, to publish time series of spending we need all years spending data merged into one dataset, with this the size of the complete dataset will also be bigger. In these cases of governments that have progressed to a more advanced publication, we can use a pipeline.

A pipeline is basically a set of instructions that we provide to map the data to the specification while keeping some of the nuances of our data. This process implies writing pieces of code to perform data processing and loading to selected endpoints. This option will give a more flexible publication but would require to define the best approach along with the Helpdesk.

Which option is best for you?

There is no unique answer to this, but there are a few questions that might help guide the initial decision to begin publishing using OpenSpending.

For example,

  • Has your government implemented a Financial Management Integrated System in which budget and spending are registered?
  • Are budget and spending data stored in different systems?
  • Is there any human intervention to consolidate the budget and/or spending data?
  • How often does the government present spending reports to the legislature? Does the system allow this periodic data extraction?
  • Does the country have historical data on budget and spending? How far in time is it available either in systems or in stored files?
  • Do you follow any standardised publication patterns at the moment?

If you’re interested in pushing for better publication, please contact us, we’re happy to help. Our Helpdesk can be reached at openspending-support@okfn.org.

 

 

 

[1] Pattanayal, Sailendra. Expenditure Control: Key Features, Stages, and Actors Prepared by Sailendra Pattanayak Fiscal Affairs Department. International Monetary Fund, 2016.

Plants and Their Application to Ornament (1896)

- April 25, 2019 in Uncategorized

Eugène Grasset's wonderful pictorial summation of his key ideas about natural forms and decorative motifs.

Plants and Their Application to Ornament (1896)

- April 25, 2019 in decoration, design, Eugène Grasset, floral, flowers, graphic design

Eugène Grasset's wonderful pictorial summation of his key ideas about natural forms and decorative motifs.

Open Knowledge Night: Disinformation and fact checking with Faktabaari

- April 25, 2019 in Events, Featured

How can investigative journalism and data tools work together? If you’re interested in using data analytics skills, learning about tools used in journalism and data journalism, or just understanding how mis- and disinformation can be detected, this evening is for you!
OKFI and Faktabaari are organising this event together!
Date: Tuesday, May 7th
Time: 5pm onwards
Place: Päivälehden museo, Helsinki Sign up at Meetup.com (link to appear shortly) Starting this spring, fact checking service Faktabaari focuses more on carrying out investigations against online disinformation. To make it possible, tools are needed. Faktabaari has acquired Trendolizer for finding out what is trending on the web and for tracking sources. Trendolizer is a creation of Belgian fact checking wizard Maarten Schenk, also behind fact checking site Lead Stories. Faktabaari also has requested access for a platform of the European Observatory against Disinformation. The platform is based on Truly Media which is co-developed by ATC and Deutsche Welle and verification tool TruthNest. These kind of tools have been acquired primarily because of EU elections, but it is good to look beyond them. Fact check, investigative journalism and data experts will certainly have common interests, they just have to find them. Tentative program:
  • Short introduction to fact checking and related tools
  • Knowledge crystals as potential tools for crowdsourced fact checking
  • Data analytics and open data tools for fact checking
  • Networking and idea generation
The post Open Knowledge Night: Disinformation and fact checking with Faktabaari appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

August Strindberg’s Celestographs (1893–4)

- April 24, 2019 in Uncategorized

The Swedish playwright's attempt to capture the night sky by the use of photographic plates alone.

August Strindberg’s Celestographs (1893–4)

- April 24, 2019 in abstract art, August Strindberg, Celestographs, cosmos, early photography, experimental photography, Photography, universe

In the village of Dornach in Austria, during the winter of 1893-4, the Swedish playwright August Strindberg laid out a series of photographic plates on the ground. Removing the “middle-man” of a camera, using the light-sensitive plates directly, he was attempting to capture images of the night sky above. He named the technique “celestography”, literally […]

On the trail of OE policy co-creation

- April 24, 2019 in copyright, Events, Featured, oer, Policy

By Javiera Atenas & Leo HavemannWe’ve recently returned from the OER19 conference in Galway, Ireland, where we had the opportunity of running the third edition of the Open Education Policy Co-creation (OEPC) workshop, and the outcomes were very interesting! But let’s start from the beginning. This workshop was originally developed in the context of the OpenMed project, to support the project stakeholders to develop Open Education Policies following the Recommendations from OpenMed to University leaders and policy makers for opening up Higher Education in the South-Mediterranean by 2030. The workshop aimed to give the project stakeholders some basic policy co-design skills, and as well as an overview of the key techniques and elements needed to opening up the arenas to foster sustainable policies. In order to support these objectives the workshop is grounded on the participation and co-creation standard developed by OGP to foster the co-creation of national commitments, and uses a set of cards and a canvas (adapted from those developed by the UK Policy Lab) aligning the elements with those recommended by the Ljubljana Action Plan, and the JRC report, Policy Approaches to Open Education. The workshop elements aim at raising awareness of the international Landscape towards widening participation including a wide range of stakeholders, while, being resourceful, optimistic and flexible, to ensure that the policy design addresses the co-creation process in a specific context, involving a wide range of policy design partners to ensure the correct implementation, overseeing the opportunities and challenges of an OE policy, and the key elements these must comprise providing the evidence needed to support the stakeholders and to prevent risks of policy derailment.   The OE policy workshop fosters the assessment of data, research and experiences from national and international perspectives related to the socio-economic, political and cultural context in what is known as global policy convergence [Haddad & Demsky (1995); Thompson & Cook (2014)]

From Rome to Warsaw

We piloted the OEPC workshop at the OpenMed conference (Rome) with a group of stakeholders from Egypt, England, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Palestine and Spain. Then, with Fabio Nascimbeni we re-tested the methodology at the OE Policy Forum (Warsaw), with stakeholders from Germany, Malta, Poland, Romania, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden and The Netherlands. In both pilots, the participants agreed that core processes and partners for OE policy-making were co-design and collaboration, which should include not only senior management but academics, librarians and experts in copyright, as these could provide a wide range of perspectives related to their local contexts and needs. Also, the participants mentioned as stakeholders the need to work alongside with Open Science, Open Access and OE experts and policymakers to foster cohesion in Open Policies.

OpenMed Policy Forum

Regarding solutions and approaches, the participants mentioned the need to include experts in accreditation systems and copyright regulations, as these policy opportunities are key to foster sustainability in OE policy making, but also, are possible challenges and barriers for promoting the adoption of Open Educational Practices, alongside the lack of copyright and IP understanding, and scarce awareness of open practices amongst faculty, senior management, and policymakers, which prevent the acknowledgment of Open Practices for career progression, and, also diminish the chances for obtaining funding to implement OE policies. So, in order to enable an OE policy, the participants mentioned as key elements the recognition of Open Practices and accreditation of Open Learning were key, as these elements, can provide evidence to promote the adoption of Open Education alongside with international good practices, data on cost-benefits of OER, national educational data and performance data to showcase the impact of Open Education.

Centrum Cyfrowe – Open Education Policy Forum

According to the participants of the first two pilots, the main beneficiaries of an OE policy are learners and educators, however, families, general public, universities and governments can also benefit from Open Education by lowering costs of access to education while widening participation, although, the groups mentioned that it is key to be aware of the risks that an OE policy may face, are lack of political understanding of openness, as well as datafication and commodification of education and also, lobbying from commercial publishers and ed-tech vendors might severely impact upon  or derail an OE policy initiative.

From Warsaw to Galway

With all this information in hand, and after carefully updating the kit according to the feedback given by the pilot participants, we ran a new edition of our workshop, billed as Fostering Openness in Education: considerations for sustainable policy making at OER19, in which over 20 participants from Ireland, England, Scotland, Austria, The Netherlands, Australia and Spain participated. For them, in order to foster co-creation of OE policies, processes such as the involvement of communities of practices and use spaces in global conferences are key, and also, the use of consultations and roundtables to discuss the policy at different stages. When discussing the policy context, the participants mentioned the importance of acknowledging the voices of diverse groups to ensure inclusivity, considering the level of access to technological infrastructure. When talking about Policy Design Partners the participants agree that educators, policy makers, librarians, learning technologists and education experts need to be involved, while others mentioned the need to include learners. While discussing opportunities and challenges, the participants mentioned collaboration, innovation, chances to flourish and improvement of quality and access to education as key opportunities while, they highlighted as challenges, the commodification of education and conflicts of interest and agendas between negotiations between institutions and technology suppliers.

Pic by Virginia Rodés

In relation to the key elements of an OE policy, the participants highlighted transparent practices, and bench-learning from existing policies in order to include accreditation and recognition of Open Learning, and also, to have elements that enable  measurement of the impact of the policy, as impact data can be further reused by other institutions willing to develop their policies as evidence, including for example student success rates, uptake rates, learner engagement and amount of resources created and used. This evidence can provide data for recognition of educators’ good practices, towards benefiting two groups of key stakeholders learners and the society as a whole through the provision of Open Content. Finally, in relation to risks, the participants mentioned the lobby of commercial textbook publishers and from educational corporations taking advantage of Open Content to profit commercially.

From Galway to London

Following the Galway workshop, we have reviewed and compared the outcomes of the three workshops and found some fascinating stuff. Regarding processes in the Rome pilot, most of the discussion focused on the co-creation process, as for the participants, policy-making was most likely related to the governance processes and to senior management activities, as for the groups in Warsaw, it was key to connect OE with other educational reforms, and to align it with their Open Government Partnership strategies, while in Galway, the keyword was collaboration, as they saw the opportunity for fostering collective ownership when a policy is co-created. Regarding the policy context, for the groups in Rome, the need was related with the need of promoting innovation to enhance the quality of education in a context of overcrowded classrooms, while in Warsaw, lots of the discussion focused on the need of having content in national languages, and in Galway the key idea was inclusion and diversity, to provide learners with the content they need. When discussing Policy Design Partners the participants in Rome highlighted the importance of involving international OE experts and the group in Warsaw mentioned learning technologists and copyright experts while in Galway, librarians and academics were mentioned. In relation with to policy opportunities, the groups in Rome mentioned access to quality educational materials and opportunities for distance learning, while in Warsaw, OE policies were seen as a mean to defeat the EU copyright reform and in Galway, the concepts of co-creation and collaboration to foster bottom-up policies was seen as a great advantage. In regards with the challenges, in Rome, the biggest one mentioned was overcrowding of classrooms and little flexibility for open learning accreditation, while in Warsaw the EU copyright reform and the ruthless publishers’ lobby was seen as a major threat. For the groups in Rome, Warsaw and Galway, the key elements were accreditation of open learning, and recognition of open education practices for career progression. For the participants in Rome, the key evidence was good practices on the use and production of OER at an international level, while in Warsaw, it was important to provide data on cost-benefits of OER, and in Galway, success rates, uptake rates and learning engagement data as key to foster an OE policy. Finally, the key stakeholders for the group in Rome were learners, educators and universities while for the Warsaw group governments were also key, and for the participants in Galway, the group extended to the society as a whole. In regards with the risks, the group in Rome mentioned lack of political understanding of openness, while the participants in Warsaw, were concerned about the current wave of datafication, commodification and marketisation of education and furthermore, worried at the tactics used by publishers and ed-tech vendors/gurus, as this set of practices were of potential danger not only to OE but to education in general, and this concern was widely replicated in the Galway session. Is interesting to see that in some cases the groups see elements from different perspectives, and while for the groups in Warsaw and in Galway shared some concerns regarding datafication and copyright, the participants in Rome were more concerned by the lack of IT literacies. It is also interesting each group, without being connected, builds on top of each other, and that for all the international OE community it is key to foster sustainable OE policies that can provide evidence of good practices to promote the adoption of OE.

From London to Lisbon

Our next stop is Lisbon, we will be holding another  OE policy co-creation workshop at the CC summit, so join us Friday, May 10th from 3:30pm – 4:25pm.

Pic by Javiera Atenas

 

Next stops

If you think that your institution or a consortium of institutions may benefit from this open policy-making exercise, please get in touch with Leo Havemann <leo.havemann@open.ac.uk> or with Javiera Atenas <javiera.atenas@idatosabiertos.org>  

References

Haddad, W. D., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: an applied framework Fundamentals of educational planning—51. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/11_200.pdf Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Education policy-making and time. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 700–715.https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.875225   —

About the authors

Javiera Atenas: PhD in Education and co-coordinator of the Open Education Working Group, responsible for the promotion of Open Data, Open Policies and Capacity Building in Open Education. She is also a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and the Education Lead at the Latin American Initiative for Open Data [ILDA] as well as an academic and researcher with interest in the use of Open Data as Open Educational Resources and in critical pedagogy. @jatenas  
Leo Havemann: Is a Digital Education Advisor at University College London, and a postgraduate researcher in open education at the Open University. He is a co-ordinator of the M25 Learning Technology Group. His research interests include open educational practices, skills and literacies, blended learning, and technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. He has taught in HE in New Zealand and Australia, worked as a librarian in a London FE college, and worked in IT roles in the private sector. He has a Master’s degree from the University of Waikato. He can be followed as @leohavemann on Twitter.
                  sad