You are browsing the archive for Paul Walsh.

Paul Walsh is joining Viderum as CEO

- December 19, 2018 in News, Viderum

I am delighted to announce that from January 1st 2019 I am moving from Open Knowledge International (OKI) to join OKI’s sister organization Viderum as CEO. In my 4.5 years at OKI, I’ve had the privilege of working across a wide range of the activity the organisation engages in. I’ve written software for immediate deployment into government offices, designed technical platforms for our grant funded work, curated a number of data specifications, led on the delivery of projects large and small, and run the organisation as a whole as part of the senior management team. It has truly been a dynamic ride, and I’m grateful for the experience I have acquired both personally and professionally. Over this time I have also had the privilege of working with, being mentored by, and mentoring, a number of exceptional people. OKI has always attracted amazing, unique, and motivated people with its broad and inspiring mission. I’ve never been in a working environment quite like it, and it is the main aspect of work that I will miss once I leave. In joining Viderum as CEO, I am moving on, but not too far away. Viderum was spun out of OKI  to provide high quality CKAN-based data management solutions for clients world over. My move follows on from recent changes at Viderum, and together with Rufus Pollock and the rest of the Viderum team, I’ll be leading on a renewed approach to our core data management business. There is huge, undeveloped potential for next generation open source data management solutions across government, business and enterprise, and we are well positioned as a team to provide vision and execution of new and innovative approaches building on CKAN, Frictionless Data, and other open source software. For the next couple of months, in addition to my new role, I will be continuing in my current senior management role at OKI with Karin Christiansen, though at reduced capacity, so we can support Catherine Stihler as she moves in post as OKI’s new CEO. Going forward, I can be reached for Viderum-related business at I want to thank the OKI Board for all of their support over my time at OKI, and in particular, Karin Christiansen, both as board chair and in her role as interim Executive Director over the last 6 months.   About Viderum Viderum is a data management solutions provider. Founded as a separate company in 2015, Viderum creates, maintains, and deploys data management technologies for government, enterprise, and the non-profit sector using CKAN and other open source software. About Paul Walsh Paul Walsh is a technologist with experience implementing software, managing teams, and generating business across the commercial and non-profit sectors. Read more about Paul here.

Sloan Foundation Funds Frictionless Data for Reproducible Research

- July 12, 2018 in data infrastructures, Featured, Frictionless Data

We are excited to announce that Open Knowledge International has received a grant of $750,000 from The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for our project “Frictionless Data for Reproducible Research”. The new funding from Sloan enables us to continue work over the next 3 years via enhanced dissemination and training activities, as well as further iteration on the software and specifications via a range of deep pilot projects with research partners.  
Frictionless Data, we focus specifically on reducing friction around discoverability, structure, standardization and tooling. More generally, the technicalities around the preparation, validation and sharing of data, in ways that both enhance existing workflows and enable new ones, towards the express goal of minimizing the gap between data and insight. We do this by creating specifications and software that are primarily informed by reuse (of existing formats and standards), conceptual minimalism, and platform-agnostic interoperability. Over the last two years, with support from Sloan and others, we have validated the utility and usefulness of the Frictionless Data approach for the research community and found strong commonalities between our experiences of data work in the civic tech arena, and the friction encountered in data-driven research. The pilots and case studies we conducted over this period have enabled us to improve our specifications and software, and to engage with a wider network of actors interested in data-driven research from fields as diverse as earth science, computational biology, archeology, and the digital humanities. Building on work going on for nearly a decade, last September we launched v1 of the Frictionless Data specifications, and we have produced core software that implements those specifications across 7 programming languages. With the new grant we will iterate on this work, as well as run additional Tool Fund activities to facilitate deeper integration of the Frictionless Data approach in a range of tools and workflows that enable in reproducible research. A core point of friction in working with data is the discoverability of data. Having a curated collection of well-maintained datasets that are of high value to a given domain of inquiry is an important move towards increasing quality of data-driven research. With this in mind, we will also be organising efforts to curate datasets that are of high-value in the domains we work. This high-value data will serve as a reference for how to package data with Frictionless Data specifications, and provide suitable material for producing domain-specific training materials and guides. Finally, we will be focussing on researchers themselves and are planning a programme to recruit and train early career researchers to become trainers and evangelists of the tools in their field(s). This programme will draw lessons from years of experience running data literacy fellowships with School of Data and Panton Fellowships for OpenScience. We hope to meet researchers where they are and work with them to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach and how our tools and bring real value to your work. Are you a researcher looking for better tooling to manage your data? Do you work at or represent an organization working on issues related to research and would like to work with us on complementary issues for which data packages are suited? Are you a developer and have an idea for something we can build together? Are you a student looking to learn more about data wrangling, managing research data, or open data in general? We’d love to hear from you.  If you have any other questions or comments about this initiative, please visit this topic in our forum,  hashtag #frictionlessdata or speak to the project team on the public gitter channel.   The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is a philanthropic, not-for-profit grant-making institution based in New York City. Established in 1934 by Alfred Pritchard Sloan Jr., then-President and Chief Executive Officer of the General Motors Corporation, the Foundation makes grants in support of original research and education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and economic performance.  

Frictionless Data v1.0

- September 5, 2017 in Frictionless Data, Open Data

  Data Containerisation hits v1.0! Announcing a major milestone in the Frictionless Data initiative. Today, we’re announcing a major milestone in the Frictionless Data initiative with the official v1.0 release of the Frictionless Data specifications, including Table Schema and Data Package, along with a robust set of pre-built tooling in Python, R, Javascript, Java, PHP and Go. Frictionless Data is a collection of lightweight specifications and tooling for effortless collection, sharing, and validation of data. After close to 10 years of iterative work on the specifications themselves, and the last 6 months of fine-tuning v1.0 release candidates, we are delighted to announce the availability of the following: We want to thank our funder, the Sloan Foundation, for making this release possible.

What’s inside

A brief overview of the main specifications follows. Further information is available on the specifications website.
  • Table Schema: Provides a schema for tabular data. Table Schema is well suited for use cases around handling and validating tabular data in plain text formats, and use cases that benefit from a portable, language agnostic schema format.
  • CSV Dialect: Provides a way to declare a dialect for CSV files.
  • Data Resource: Provides metadata for a data source in a consistent and machine-readable manner.
  • Data Package: Provide metadata for a collection of data sources in a consistent and machine-readable manner.
The specifications, and the code libraries that implement them, compose to form building blocks for working with data, as illustrated with the following diagram. This component based approach lends itself well to the type of data processing work we often encounter in working with open data. It has also enabled us to build higher-level applications that specifically target common open data workflows, such as our goodtables library for data validation, and our pipelines library for declarative ETL.

v1.0 work

In iterating towards a v1 of the specifications, we tried to sharpen our focus on the design philosophy of this work, and not be afraid to make significant, breaking changes in the name of increased simplicity and utility. What is the design philosophy behind this work, exactly?
  • Requirements that are driven by simplicity
  • Extensibility and customisation by design
  • Metadata that is human-editable and machine-usable
  • Reuse of existing standard formats for data
  • Language-, technology- and infrastructure-agnostic
In striving for these goals, we removed much ambiguity from the specifications, cut features that were under-defined, removed and reduced various types of optionality in the way things could be specified, and even made some implicit patterns explicit by way of creating two new specifications: Data Resource and Tabular Data Resource. See the specifications website for full information.

Next steps

We are preparing to submit Table Schema, Data Resource, Data Package, Tabular Data Resource and Tabular Data Package as IETF RFCs as soon as possible. Lastly, we’ve recently produced a video to explain our work on Frictionless Data. Here, you can get a high-level overview of the concepts and philosophy behind this work, presented by our President and Co-Founder Rufus Pollock.  

OpenSpending platform update

- August 16, 2017 in Open Knowledge, Open Spending


OpenSpending is a free, open and global platform to search, visualise, and analyse fiscal data in the public sphere. This week, we soft launched an updated technical platform, with a newly designed landing page. Until now dubbed “OpenSpending Next”, this is a completely new iteration on the previous version of OpenSpending, which has been in use since 2011. At the core of the updated platform is Fiscal Data Package. This is an open specification for describing and modelling fiscal data, and has been developed in collaboration with GIFT. Fiscal Data Package affords a flexible approach to standardising fiscal data, minimising constraints on publishers and source data via a modelling concept, and enabling progressive enhancement of data description over time. We’ll discuss in more detail below. From today:
  • Publishers can get started publishing fiscal data with the interactive Packager, and explore the possibilities of the platform’s rich API, advanced visualisations, and options for integration.
  • Hackers can work on a modern stack designed to liberate fiscal data for good! Start with the docs, chat with us, or just start hacking.
  • Civil society can access a powerful suite of visualisation and analysis tools, running on top of a huge database of open fiscal data. Discover facts, generate insights, and develop stories. Talk with us to get started.
All the work that went into this new version of OpenSpending was only made possible by our funders along the way. We want to thank Hewlett, Adessium, GIFT, and the consortium for helping fund this work. As this is now completely public, replacing the old OpenSpending platform, we do expect some bugs and issues. If you see anything, please help us by opening a ticket on our issue tracker.


The updated platform has been designed primarily around the concept of centralised data, decentralised views: we aim to create a large, and comprehensive, database of fiscal data, and provide various ways to access that data for others to build localised, context-specific applications on top. The major features of relevance to this approach are described below.

Fiscal Data Package

As mentioned above, Fiscal Data Package affords a flexible approach to standardising fiscal data. Fiscal Data Package is not a prescriptive standard, and imposes no strict requirements on source data files. Instead, users “map” source data columns to “fiscal concepts”, such as amount, date, functional classification, and so on, so that systems that implement Fiscal Data Package can process a wide variety of sources without requiring change to the source data formats directly. A minimal Fiscal Data Package only requires mapping an amount and a date concept. There are a range of additional concepts that make fiscal data usable and useful, and we encourage the mapping of these, but do not require them for a valid package. Based on this general approach to specifying fiscal data with Fiscal Data Package, the updated OpenSpending likewise imposes no strict requirements on naming of columns, or the presence of columns, in the source data. Instead, users (of the graphical user interface, and also of the application programming interfaces) can provide any source data, and iteratively create a model on top of that data that declares the fiscal measures and dimensions.



The Packager is the user-facing app that is used to model source data into Fiscal Data Packages. Using the Packager, users first get structural and schematic validation of the source files, ensuring that data to enter the platform is validly formed, and then they can model the fiscal concepts in the file, in order to publish the data. After initial modelling of data, users can also remodel their data sources for a progressive enhancement approach to improving data added to the platform.


The Explorer is the user-facing app for exploration and discovery of data available on the platform.


The Viewer is the user-facing app for building visualisations around a dataset, with a range of options, for presentation, and embedding views into 3rd party websites.


The DataMine is a custom query interface powered by Re:dash for deep investigative work over the database. We’ve included the DataMine as part of the suite of applications as it has proved incredibly useful when working in conjunction with data journalists and domain experts, and also for doing quick prototype views on the data, without the limits of API access, as one can use SQL directly.



The Datastore is a flat file datastore with source data stored in Fiscal Data Packages, providing direct access to the raw data. All other databases are built from this raw data storage, providing us with a clear mechanism for progressively enhancing the database as a whole, as well as building on this to provide such features directly to users.

Analytics and Search

The Analytics API provides a rich query interface for datasets, and the search API provides exploration and discovery capabilities across the entire database. At present, search only goes over metadata, but we have plans to iterate towards full search over all fiscal data lines.

Data Importers

Data Importers are based on a generic data pipelining framework developed at Open Knowledge International called Data Package Pipelines. Data Importers enable us to do automated ETL to get new data into OpenSpending, including the ability to update data from the source at specified intervals. We see Data Importers as key functionality of the updated platform, allowing OpenSpending to grow well beyond the one thousand plus datasets that have been uploaded manually over the last five or so years, towards tens of thousands of datasets. A great example of how we’ve put Data Importers to use is in the EU Structural Funds data that is part of the Subsidy Stories project.


It is slightly misleading to announce the launch today, when we’ve in fact been using and iterating on OpenSpending Next for almost 2 years. Some highlights from that process that have led to the platform we have today are as follows. with Adessium

Adessium provided Open Knowledge International with funding towards fiscal transparency in Europe, which enabled us to build out significant parts of the technical platform, commision work with J++ on Agricultural Subsidies , and, engage in a productive collaboration with Open Knowledge Germany on what became, which even led to another initiative from Open Knowledge Germany called The Story Hunt. This work directly contributed to the technical platform by providing an excellent use case for the processing of a large, messy amount of source data into a normalised database for analysis, and doing so while maintaining data provenance and the reproducibility of the process. There is much to do in streamlining this workflow, but the benefits, in terms of new use cases for the data, are extensive. We are particularly excited by this work, and the potential to continue in this direction, by building out a deep, open database as a potential tool for investigation and telling stories with data. via Horizon 2020

As part of the consortium, we were able to both build out parts of the technical platform, and have a live use case for the modularity of the general architecture we followed. A number of components from the core OpenSpending platform have been deployed into the platform with little to no modification, and the analytical API from OpenSpending was directly ported to run on top of a triple store implementation of the data model. An excellent outcome of this project has been the close and fruitful work with both Open Knowledge Germany and Open Knowledge Greece on technical, community, and journalistic opportunities around OpenSpending, and we plan for continuing such collaborations in the future.

Work on Fiscal Data Package with GIFT

Over three phases of work since 2015 (the third phase is currently running), we’ve been developing Fiscal Data Package as a specification to publish fiscal data against. Over this time, we’ve done extensive testing of the specification against a wide variety of data in the wild, and we are iterating towards a v1 release of the specification later this year. We’ve also been piloting the specification, and OpenSpending, with national governments. This has enabled extensive testing of both the manual modeling of data to the specification using the OpenSpending Packager, and automated ETL of data into the platform using the Data Package Pipelines framework. This work has provided the opportunity for direct use by governments of a platform we initially designed with civil society and civic tech actors in mind. We’ve identified difficulties and opportunities in this arena at both the implementation and the specification level, and we look forward to continuing this work and solving use cases for users inside government.


Many people have been involved in building the updated technical platform. Work started back in 2014 with an initial architectural vision articulated by our peers Tryggvi Björgvinsson and Rufus Pollock. The initial vision was adapted and iterated on by Adam Kariv (Technical Lead) and Sam Smith (UI/X), with Levko Kravets, Vitor Baptista, and Paul Walsh. We reused and enhanced code from Friedrich Lindenberg. Lazaros Ioannidis and Steve Bennett made important contributions to the code and the specification respectively. Diana Krebs, Cecile Le Guen, Vitoria Vlad and Anna Alberts have all contributed with project management, and feature and design input.

What’s next?

There is always more work to do. In terms of technical work, we have a long list of enhancements.
However, while the work we’ve done in the last years has been very collaborative with our specific partners, and always towards identified use cases and user stories in the partnerships we’ve been engaged in, it has not, in general, been community facing. In fact, a noted lack of community engagement goes back to before we started on the new platform we are launching today. This has to change, and it will be an important focus moving forward. Please drop by at our forum for any feedback, questions, and comments.

An approach to building open databases

- August 10, 2017 in Labs, Open Data

This post has been co-authored by Adam Kariv, Vitor Baptista, and Paul Walsh.
Open Knowledge International (OKI) recently coordinated a two-day work sprint as a way to touch base with partners in the Open Data for Tax Justice project. Our initial writeup of the sprint can be found here. Phase I of the project ended in February 2017 with the publication of What Do They Pay?, a white paper that outlines the need for a public database on the tax contributions and economic activities of multinational companies. The overarching goal of the sprint was to start some work towards such a database, by replicating data collection processes we’ve used in other projects, and to provide a space for domain expert partners to potentially use this data for some exploratory investigative work. We had limited time, a limited budget, and we are pleased with the discussions and ideas that came out of the sprint. One attendee, Tim Davies, criticised the approach we took in the technical stream of the sprint. The problem with the criticism is the extrapolation of one stream of activity during a two-day event to posit an entire approach to a project. We think exploration and prototyping should be part of any healthy project, and that is exactly what we did with our technical work in the two-day sprint. Reflecting on the discussion presents a good opportunity here to look more generally at how we, as an organisation, bring technical capacity to projects such as Open Data for Tax Justice. Of course, we often bring much more than technical capacity to a project, and Open Data for Tax Justice is no different in that regard, being mostly a research project to date. In particular, we’ll take a look at the technical approach we used for the two-day sprint. While this is not the only approach towards technical projects we employ at OKI, it has proven useful on projects driven by the creation of new databases.

An approach

Almost all projects that OKI either leads on, or participates in, have multiple partners. OKI generally participates in one of three capacities (sometimes, all three):
  • Technical design and implementation of open data platforms and apps.
  • Research and thought leadership on openness and data.
  • Dissemination and facilitating participation, often by bringing the “open data community” to interact with domain specific actors.
Only the first capacity is strictly technical, but each capacity does, more often than not, touch on technical issues around open data. Some projects have an important component around the creation of new databases targeting a particular domain. Open Data for Tax Justice is one such project, as are OpenTrials, and the Subsidy Stories project, which itself is a part of OpenSpending. While most projects have partners, usually domain experts, it does not mean that collaboration is consistent or equally distributed over the project life cycle. There are many reasons for this to be the case, such as the strengths and weaknesses of our team and those of our partners, priorities identified in the field, and, of course, project scope and funding. With this as the backdrop for projects we engage in generally, we’ll focus for the rest of this post on aspects when we bring technical capacity to a project. As a team (the Product Team at OKI), we are currently iterating on an approach in such projects, based on the following concepts:
  • Replication and reuse
  • Data provenance and reproducibility
  • Centralise data, decentralise views
  • Data wrangling before data standards
While not applicable to all projects, we’ve found this approach useful when contributing to projects that involve building a database to, ultimately, unlock the potential to use data towards social change.

Replication and reuse

We highly value the replication of processes and the reuse of tooling across projects. Replication and reuse enables us to reduce technical costs, focus more on the domain at hand, and share knowledge on common patterns across open data projects. In terms of technical capacity, the Product Team is becoming quite effective at this, with a strong body of processes and tooling ready for use. This also means that each project enables us to iterate on such processes and tooling, integrating new learnings. Many of these learnings come from interactions with partners and users, and others come from working with data. In the recent Open Data for Tax Justice sprint, we invited various partners to share experiences working in this field and try a prototype we built to extract data from country-by-country reports to a central database. It was developed in about a week, thanks to the reuse of processes and tools from other projects and contexts. When our partners started looking into this database, they had questions that could only be answered by looking back to the original reports. They needed to check the footnotes and other context around the data, which weren’t available in the database yet. We’ve encountered similar use cases in both and OpenTrials, so we can build upon these experiences to iterate towards a reusable solution for the Open Data for Tax Justice project. By doing this enough times in different contexts, we’re able to solve common issues quickly, freeing more time to focus on the unique challenges each project brings.

Data provenance and reproducibility

We think that data provenance, and reproducibility of views on data, is absolutely essential to building databases with a long and useful future. What exactly is data provenance? A useful definition from wikipedia is “… (d)ata provenance documents the inputs, entities, systems, and processes that influence data of interest, in effect providing a historical record of the data and its origins”. Depending on the way provenance is implemented in a project, it can also be a powerful tool for reproducibility of the data. Most work around open data at present does not consider data provenance and reproducibility as an essential aspect of working with open data. We think this is to the detriment of the ecosystem’s broader goals of seeing open data drive social change: the credible use of data from projects with no provenance or reproducibility built in to the creation of databases is significantly diminished in our “post truth” era. Our current approach builds data provenance and reproducibility right into the heart of building a database. There is a clear, documented record of every action performed on data, from the extraction of source data, through to normalisation processes, and right to the creation of records in a database. The connection between source data and processed data is not lost, and, importantly, the entire data pipeline can be reproduced by others. We acknowledge that a clear constraint of this approach, in its current form, is that it is necessarily more technical than, say, ad hoc extraction and manipulation with spreadsheets and other consumer tools used in manual data extraction processes. However, as such approaches make data provenance and reproducibility harder because there is no history of the changes made or where the data comes from, we are willing to accept this more technical approach and iterate on ways to reduce technical barriers. We hope to see more actors in the open data ecosystem integrating provenance and reproducibility right into their data work. Without doing so, we greatly reduce the ability for open data to be used in an investigative capacity, and likewise, we diminish the possibility of using the outputs of open data projects in the wider establishment of facts about the world. Recent work on beneficial ownership data takes a step in this direction, leveraging the PROV-DM standard to declare data provenance facts.

Centralise data, decentralise views

In OpenSpending, OpenTrials, and our initial exploratory work on Open Data for Tax Justice, there is an overarching theme to how we have approached data work, user stories and use cases, and co-design with domain experts: “centralise data, decentralise views”. Building a central database for open data in a given domain affords ways of interacting with such data that are extremely difficult, or impossible, by actively choosing to decentralise such data. Centralised databases make investigative work that uses the data easier, and allows for the discovery, for example, of patterns across entities and time that can be very hard to discover if data is decentralised. Additionally, by having in place a strong approach to data provenance and reproducibility, the complete replication of a centralised database is relatively easily done, and very much encouraged. This somewhat mitigates a major concern with centralised databases, being that they imply some type of “vendor lock-in”. Views on data are better when decentralised. By “views on data” we refer to visualisations, apps, websites – any user-facing presentation of data. While having data centralised potentially enables richer views, data almost always needs to be presented with additional context, localised, framed in a particular narrative, or otherwise presented in unique ways that will never be best served from a central point. Further, decentralised usage of data provides a feedback mechanism for iteration on the central database. For example, providing commonly used contextual data, establishing clear use cases for enrichment and reconciliation of measures and dimensions in the data, and so on.

Data wrangling before data standards

As a team, we are interested in, engage with, and also author, open data standards. However, we are very wary of efforts to establish a data standard before working with large amounts of data that such a standard is supposed to represent. Data standards that are developed too early are bound to make untested assumptions about the world they seek to formalise (the data itself). There is a dilemma here of describing the world “as it is”, or, “as we would like it to be”. No doubt, a “standards first” approach is valid in some situations. Often, it seems, in the realm of policy. We do not consider such an approach flawed, but rather, one with its own pros and cons. We prefer to work with data, right from extraction and processing, through to user interaction, before working towards public standards, specifications, or any other type of formalisation of the data for a given domain. Our process generally follows this pattern:
  • Get to know available data and establish (with domain experts) initial use cases.
  • Attempt to map what we do not know (e.g.: data that is not yet publicly accessible), as this clearly impacts both usage of the data, and formalisation of a standard.
  • Start data work by prescribing the absolute minimum data specification to use the data (i.e.: meet some or all of the identified use cases).
  • Implement data infrastructure that makes it simple to ingest large amounts of data, and also to keep the data specification reactive to change.
  • Integrate data from a wide variety of sources, and, with partners and users, work on ways to improve participation / contribution of data.
  • Repeat the above steps towards a fairly stable specification for the data.
  • Consider extracting this specification into a data standard.
Throughout this entire process, there is a constant feedback loop with domain expert partners, as well as a range of users interested in the data.


We want to be very clear that we do not think that the above approach is the only way to work towards a database in a data-driven project. Design (project design, technical design, interactive design, and so on) emerges from context. Design is also a sequence of choices, and each choice has an opportunity cost based on various constraints that are present in any activity. In projects we engage in around open databases, technology is a means to other, social ends. Collaboration around data is generally facilitated by technology, but we do not think the technological basis for this collaboration should be limited to existing consumer-facing tools, especially if such tools have hidden costs on the path to other important goals, like data provenance and reproducibility. Better tools and processes for collaboration will only emerge over time if we allow exploration and experimentation. We think it is important to understand general approaches to working with open data, and how they may manifest within a single project, or across a range of projects. Project work is not static, and definitely not reducible to snapshots of activity within a wider project life cycle. Certain approaches emphasise different ends. We’ve tried above to highlight some pros and cons of our approach, especially around data provenance and reproducibility, and data standards. In closing, we’d like to invite others interested in approaches to building open databases to engage in a broader discussion around these themes, as well as a discussion around short term and long term goals of such projects. From our perspective, we think there could be a great deal of value for the ecosystem around open data generally – CSOs, NGOs, governments, domain experts, funders – via a proactive discussion or series of posts with a multitude of voices. Join the discussion here if this is of interest to you.