Back to topic listing
Previous thread
Next thread
-
From: philipashlock
Subject: Introductions
Date: Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM
To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with this effort. I'll go first. I work at The Open Planning Project in NYC doing everything from project management to web design to advocating open data and open standards. My background is primarily information architecture and web design. I bike commute to work daily and see issues that should be reported to 311 services several times a week. I haven't always had the best experience reporting things though, mostly just because of how long one has to be on the phone to report something simple. My objective with this effort is to create a very simple standard that will allow developers and different city governments to more easily work together building tools that can directly serve to improve cities while making it even easier and more engaging for everybody to contribute to that process. I also see some longer term potential in this effort: it can be a strong but simple example of how beneficial it is for cities to work together on technology and it can be a strong, but simple example of how meaningful and accessible civic participation can be. Phil -- Philip Ashlock The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org phil@... <mailto:phil@...> | @philipashlock <http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | (360) 389-2741
Attachments
-
From: richlarcombe
Subject: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 12:09 AM
On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to > briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with > this effort. I'll go first. > > I work at The Open Planning Project in NYC doing everything from project > management to web design to advocating open data and open standards. My > background is primarily information architecture and web design. I bike > commute to work daily and see issues that should be reported to 311 > services several times a week. I haven't always had the best experience > reporting things though, mostly just because of how long one has to be > on the phone to report something simple. My objective with this effort > is to create a very simple standard that will allow developers and > different city governments to more easily work together building tools > that can directly serve to improve cities while making it even easier > and more engaging for everybody to contribute to that process. I also > see some longer term potential in this effort: it can be a strong but > simple example of how beneficial it is for cities to work together on > technology and it can be a strong, but simple example of how meaningful > and accessible civic participation can be. > > Phil > Hi Phil and all Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce myself to hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope is limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's developments with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a very different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this helps define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management service, where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single product/point of contact to interface with. Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our customers wishes. Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that always just works). They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional civic service. And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. One system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask for. I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem space? Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is just the pace in the take up of the technology. Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is currently filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of Reports to engage both Citizens and the Authorities. Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't derail the project from it's excellent intentions. Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than location), but if i can i will. Rich Application Developer Neatstreets
-
From: slinkp
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 10:53 AM
> On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > > To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to > > briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with > > this effort. ... Ah, good idea. I missed this thread first time around. Hi! I'm a coworker of Phil's. I've been working at openplans.org since 2007, as a software developer: mostly back-end stuff, a bit of javascript here and there. I was heavily involved in the software behind coactivate.org; more recently I did a bunch of work on http://fixcity.org and a bit on http://demo.geowebdns.org. I got involved in the open311 discussions because we were looking into building a mobile client for http://uncivilservants.org, and one idea was to add open311 API support to that site so that this hypothetical client could be re-used as (or tweaked into) a mobile client for other open311 implementations. Not sure yet whether that idea's going to pan out, but it's clear that open311 is important to TOPP going forward, so I'm likely to stick around on this list. -- Paul Winkler http://coactivate.org/people/slinkp/profile yahoo: slinkp23 AIM: slinkp1970
-
From: philipashlock
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 12:56 PM
Hey Rich, thanks for joining the conversation. I've left some of my own responses inline below: Rich Larcombe wrote: > On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > >> To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to >> briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with >> this effort. I'll go first. >> > > Hi Phil and all > > Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce myself to > hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. > My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on > Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. > We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope is > limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. > > Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's developments > with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a very > different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. > > I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this helps > define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. > Yeah, Open311 isn't a very good name outside the U.S. and Canada and it doesn't articulate the current focus being limited to service requests or reporting issues that concern public space. I've started to advocate that we rename the specific reporting functionality we are working on now to a more universal name such as "Public Responder" while keeping Open311 as an umbrella term that still makes sense to those familiar with 311 as a standard point of contact for public services. > We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management service, > where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile > (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single product/point > of contact to interface with. > > > I would expect this to be the case for most implementations of the Open311 API as well. > Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our customers > wishes. > Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the > emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that > always just works). > I totally agree and that is much of the motivation behind this work > They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various > bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional civic > service. > But they do want a choice of which smartphone platform they are using and where they are living and what language they are speaking. Until everyone has an Android-based phone or every mobile phone supports a robust HTML5 stack of open standards (like PhoneGap or Palm WebOS) there are going to have to be an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles. People just want things to work, but they just want them to work /their way/. This is why open systems are important. I think a major benefit of making this specification capable of handling SMS is that SMS is the most ubiquitous standard and something everyone is familiar with. Ultimately the idea is to parallel the consistency and ubiquity of the 311 shortcode as a point of contact with more robust technology. > And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of > agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. One > system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask for. > > I believe that ultimately open systems increase interoperability as well as "functionality that always just works" in the sense that dysfunction is often caused by lack of interoperability or a lack of development in the absence of any competing innovation (eg Internet Explorer 6) > I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the > 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. > > Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on this? > Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem space? > Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be > encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is just > the pace in the take up of the technology. > > Right now I think this collaboration is happening with a pretty solid mix of involvement from government, not profit, and private enterprise. Actual implementation would be encompassed within government infrastructure if government decides to, but I don't think that implementation should have to depend on government being first to act - hence FixMyStreet, SeeClickFix, et al. > Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is currently > filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of Reports to > engage both Citizens and the Authorities. > > This sounds great. Glad to see this developing down under. I would think that issue management technology like Open311 and that facilitated by Neatstreets could ultimate facilitate interactions that would inform processes like Future Melbourne <http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/> > Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't derail > the project from it's excellent intentions. > > Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than > location), but if i can i will. > > Keep the feedback coming. It's great to keep the conversation moving any way possible. > Rich > Application Developer > Neatstreets > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271650161269 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions. > -- Philip Ashlock The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org phil@... <mailto:phil@...> | @philipashlock <http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | (360) 389-2741
Attachments
-
From: richlarcombe
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 07:13 PM
Thanks Phil. Just to get back to you in regards to: I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. >Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on >this? Without going into great detail (as this after all is an introduction thread - although happy to start one if you think warrants deeper discussion). From my limited reading of Open311, my understanding is that the proposal essentially covers the creation of the GoeWeb DNS, plus the goal of a standard format API, which is to be implemented independently by each Jurisdiction. Personally i foresee the need for a 'Full' mapping service or 'Mothership'to broker the communications on behalf of all parties in a given region (such as FMS/SCF&NS already provide). i.e Store and own the issues/reports, and allow all parties to access and change the information at a single source. This may only be semi automated for most Jurisdictions at present, but that's the beauty of the mothership. It can allow integration at various levels simultaneously, whilst buffering the end users (Citizens) from the chaos. For me this greatly reduces the complexity in mapping the many user applications to the many jurisdictions. The problems / anomalies that do arise (we have already have experienced a stack load with the 25-30 Authorities we're interfacing with) can be solved just the once. This is not so easy with a many to many application relationship especially with a moving spec. I appreciate this would be at a cost of restricting an open philosophy, but if the prime goal is to best serve the citizen, i think i know which solution I'd be backing. Also, on the handset choices, yes i agree multiple platforms is must. We're about to release Blackberry, and upgrade our Android and Iphone. The next choice is not so obvious, 3 are considered potential, not sure yet which one we'll go with). Still struggle to see the benefit for the user in having a choice of applications on a single handset for a simple picture sending task, i'd always just use the one that had the highest chance of getting my report to the Jurisdiction. And thanks for link, we've already had encouraging meetings with the Lord Mayor's office, have to say we're very lucky to live in such a great city as Melbourne. Rich p.s (we term Jurisdictions as 'Responsible Authorities', as for us it includes Transport Agencies / Charity Organisations / Commerical companies as well Local & State wide Government Groups). Will try to keep to your terminology though - as have a feeling we Aussies could be in the minority here! On 20 April 2010 02:56, Philip Ashlock <phil@...> wrote: > Hey Rich, thanks for joining the conversation. I've left some of my own > responses inline below: > > > Rich Larcombe wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > > > To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to > briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with > this effort. I'll go first. > > Hi Phil and all > > Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce myself to > hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. > My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on > Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. > We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope is > limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. > > Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's developments > with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a very > different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. > > I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this helps > define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. > > > > > Yeah, Open311 isn't a very good name outside the U.S. and Canada and it > doesn't articulate the current focus being limited to service requests or > reporting issues that concern public space. I've started to advocate that we > rename the specific reporting functionality we are working on now to a more > universal name such as "Public Responder" while keeping Open311 as an > umbrella term that still makes sense to those familiar with 311 as a > standard point of contact for public services. > > > We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management service, > where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile > (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single product/point > of contact to interface with. > > > > > > I would expect this to be the case for most implementations of the Open311 > API as well. > > > Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our customers > wishes. > Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the > emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that > always just works). > > > > I totally agree and that is much of the motivation behind this work > > > They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various > bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional civic > service. > > > > But they do want a choice of which smartphone platform they are using and > where they are living and what language they are speaking. Until everyone > has an Android-based phone or every mobile phone supports a robust HTML5 > stack of open standards (like PhoneGap or Palm WebOS) there are going to > have to be an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles. People > just want things to work, but they just want them to work *their way*. > This is why open systems are important. I think a major benefit of making > this specification capable of handling SMS is that SMS is the most > ubiquitous standard and something everyone is familiar with. > > Ultimately the idea is to parallel the consistency and ubiquity of the 311 > shortcode as a point of contact with more robust technology. > > And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of > agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. One > system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask for. > > > > > I believe that ultimately open systems increase interoperability as well as > "functionality that always just works" in the sense that dysfunction is > often caused by lack of interoperability or a lack of development in the > absence of any competing innovation (eg Internet Explorer 6) > > > I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the > 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. > > > > > Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on this? > > > Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem space? > Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be > encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is just > the pace in the take up of the technology. > > > > > Right now I think this collaboration is happening with a pretty solid mix > of involvement from government, not profit, and private enterprise. Actual > implementation would be encompassed within government infrastructure if > government decides to, but I don't think that implementation should have to > depend on government being first to act - hence FixMyStreet, SeeClickFix, et > al. > > > Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is currently > filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of Reports to > engage both Citizens and the Authorities. > > > > This sounds great. Glad to see this developing down under. I would think > that issue management technology like Open311 and that facilitated by > Neatstreets could ultimate facilitate interactions that would inform > processes like Future Melbourne <http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/> > > > Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't derail > the project from it's excellent intentions. > > Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than > location), but if i can i will. > > > > Keep the feedback coming. It's great to keep the conversation moving any > way possible. > > > Rich > Application Developer > Neatstreets > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271650161269 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions. > > > > -- > Philip Ashlock > The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org > phil@... | @philipashlock <http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | > (360) 389-2741 > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271696161320<http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271696161320> > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > discuss@.... Please contact > discuss-manager@... for questions. >
Attachments
-
From: Jennifer Bell
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 22, 2010 08:33 PM
I'm Jennifer Bell, current E.D. of VisibleGovernment.ca, a Canadian non-profit that promotes online transparency. One of our projects is http://fixmystreet.ca, an open source 311 reporting website that's a clone of MySociety's fixmystreet.com. We are currently working on supporting mobile apps, and some volunteers are coding a reference IPhone implementation that may or may not be finished at a code-athon (http://opendataottawa.ca/) this weekend. While I've been on this list for ages, working out a mobile API had me come back to see how the Open311 spec was developing. Open311 is something we'd definitely like to support. Jennifer Bell On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Rich Larcombe <richard.larcombe@...> wrote: > Thanks Phil. > > Just to get back to you in regards to: > > I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether > the > 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. > > > >>Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on >this? > > Without going into great detail (as this after all is an introduction thread > - although happy to start one if you think warrants deeper discussion). > > From my limited reading of Open311, my understanding is that the proposal > essentially covers the creation of the GoeWeb DNS, plus the goal of a > standard format API, which is to be implemented independently by each > Jurisdiction. > Personally i foresee the need for a 'Full' mapping service or 'Mothership' > to broker the communications on behalf of all parties in a given region > (such as FMS/SCF&NS already provide). > i.e Store and own the issues/reports, and allow all parties to access and > change the information at a single source. This may only be semi automated > for most Jurisdictions at present, but that's the beauty of the mothership. > It can allow integration at various levels simultaneously, whilst buffering > the end users (Citizens) from the chaos. > For me this greatly reduces the complexity in mapping the many user > applications to the many jurisdictions. The problems / anomalies that do > arise (we have already have experienced a stack load with the 25-30 > Authorities we're interfacing with) can be solved just the once. This is not > so easy with a many to many application relationship especially with a > moving spec. > > I appreciate this would be at a cost of restricting an open philosophy, but > if the prime goal is to best serve the citizen, i think i know which > solution I'd be backing. > > Also, on the handset choices, yes i agree multiple platforms is must. We're > about to release Blackberry, and upgrade our Android and Iphone. The next > choice is not so obvious, 3 are considered potential, not sure yet which one > we'll go with). > Still struggle to see the benefit for the user in having a choice of > applications on a single handset for a simple picture sending task, i'd > always just use the one that had the highest chance of getting my report to > the Jurisdiction. > > And thanks for link, we've already had encouraging meetings with the Lord > Mayor's office, have to say we're very lucky to live in such a great city as > Melbourne. > > Rich > > p.s (we term Jurisdictions as 'Responsible Authorities', as for us it > includes Transport Agencies / Charity Organisations / Commerical companies > as well Local & State wide Government Groups). Will try to keep to your > terminology though - as have a feeling we Aussies could be in the minority > here! > > > > > > On 20 April 2010 02:56, Philip Ashlock <phil@...> wrote: >> >> Hey Rich, thanks for joining the conversation. I've left some of my own >> responses inline below: >> >> >> Rich Larcombe wrote: >> >> On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: >> >> >> To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to >> briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with >> >> this effort. I'll go first. >> >> >> Hi Phil and all >> >> Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce >> myself to >> hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. >> My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on >> Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. >> We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope >> is >> limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. >> >> Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's >> developments >> with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a >> very >> different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. >> >> I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this >> helps >> define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. >> >> >> Yeah, Open311 isn't a very good name outside the U.S. and Canada and it >> doesn't articulate the current focus being limited to service requests or >> reporting issues that concern public space. I've started to advocate that we >> rename the specific reporting functionality we are working on now to a more >> universal name such as "Public Responder" while keeping Open311 as an >> umbrella term that still makes sense to those familiar with 311 as a >> standard point of contact for public services. >> >> >> We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management >> service, >> where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile >> (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single >> product/point >> of contact to interface with. >> >> >> >> >> I would expect this to be the case for most implementations of the Open311 >> API as well. >> >> >> Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our >> customers >> wishes. >> Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the >> emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that >> always just works). >> >> >> I totally agree and that is much of the motivation behind this work >> >> They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various >> bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional >> civic >> service. >> >> >> But they do want a choice of which smartphone platform they are using and >> where they are living and what language they are speaking. Until everyone >> has an Android-based phone or every mobile phone supports a robust HTML5 >> stack of open standards (like PhoneGap or Palm WebOS) there are going to >> have to be an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles. People >> just want things to work, but they just want them to work their way. This is >> why open systems are important. I think a major benefit of making this >> specification capable of handling SMS is that SMS is the most ubiquitous >> standard and something everyone is familiar with. >> >> Ultimately the idea is to parallel the consistency and ubiquity of the 311 >> shortcode as a point of contact with more robust technology. >> >> And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of >> agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. >> One >> system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask >> for. >> >> >> >> I believe that ultimately open systems increase interoperability as well >> as "functionality that always just works" in the sense that dysfunction is >> often caused by lack of interoperability or a lack of development in the >> absence of any competing innovation (eg Internet Explorer 6) >> >> I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether >> the >> 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it >> viable. >> >> >> >> Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on this? >> >> Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem >> space? >> Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be >> encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is >> just >> the pace in the take up of the technology. >> >> >> >> Right now I think this collaboration is happening with a pretty solid mix >> of involvement from government, not profit, and private enterprise. Actual >> implementation would be encompassed within government infrastructure if >> government decides to, but I don't think that implementation should have to >> depend on government being first to act - hence FixMyStreet, SeeClickFix, et >> al. >> >> Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is >> currently >> filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of >> Reports to >> engage both Citizens and the Authorities. >> >> >> >> This sounds great. Glad to see this developing down under. I would think >> that issue management technology like Open311 and that facilitated by >> Neatstreets could ultimate facilitate interactions that would inform >> processes like Future Melbourne >> >> Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't >> derail >> the project from it's excellent intentions. >> >> Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than >> location), but if i can i will. >> >> >> >> Keep the feedback coming. It's great to keep the conversation moving any >> way possible. >> >> Rich >> Application Developer >> Neatstreets >> >> >> -- >> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271650161269 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... >> for questions. >> >> >> -- >> Philip Ashlock >> The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org >> phil@... | @philipashlock | (360) 389-2741 >> >> -- >> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271696161320 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... >> for questions. > > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271719160601 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... > for questions. > -- http://visiblegovernment.ca RSS Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/VisiblegovernmentcaBlog
-
-
From: richlarcombe
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 07:19 PM
Thanks Phil. Just to get back to you in regards to: I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. >Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on >this? Without going into great detail (as this after all is an introduction thread - although happy to start one if you think warrants deeper discussion). From my limited reading of Open311, my understanding is that the proposal essentially covers the creation of the GoeWeb DNS, plus the goal of a standard format API, which is to be implemented independently by each Jurisdiction. Personally i foresee the need for a 'Full' mapping service or 'Mothership'to broker the communications on behalf of all parties in a given region (such as FMS/SCF&NS already provide). i.e Store and own the issues/reports, and allow all parties to access and change the information at a single source. This may only be semi automated for most Jurisdictions at present, but that's the beauty of the mothership. It can allow integration at various levels simultaneously, whilst buffering the end users (Citizens) from the chaos. For me this greatly reduces the complexity in mapping the many user applications to the many jurisdictions. The problems / anomalies that do arise (we have already have experienced a stack load with the 25-30 Authorities we're interfacing with) can be solved just the once. This is not so easy with a many to many application relationship especially with a moving spec. I appreciate this would be at a cost of restricting an open philosophy, but if the prime goal is to best serve the citizen, i think i know which solution I'd be backing. Also, on the handset choices, yes i agree multiple platforms is must. We're about to release Blackberry, and upgrade our Android and Iphone. The next choice is not so obvious, 3 are considered potential, not sure yet which one we'll go with). Still struggle to see the benefit for the user in having a choice of applications on a single handset for a simple picture sending task, i'd always just use the one that had the highest chance of getting my report to the Jurisdiction. And thanks for link, we've already had encouraging meetings with the Lord Mayor's office, have to say we're very lucky to live in such a great city as Melbourne. Rich p.s (we term Jurisdictions as 'Responsible Authorities', as for us it includes Transport Agencies / Charity Organisations / Commerical companies as well Local & State wide Government Groups). Will try to keep to your terminology though - as have a feeling we Aussies could be in the minority here! On 20 April 2010 02:56, Philip Ashlock <phil@...> wrote: > Hey Rich, thanks for joining the conversation. I've left some of my own > responses inline below: > > > Rich Larcombe wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > > > To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to > briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with > this effort. I'll go first. > > Hi Phil and all > > Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce myself to > hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. > My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on > Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. > We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope is > limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. > > Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's developments > with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a very > different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. > > I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this helps > define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. > > > > > Yeah, Open311 isn't a very good name outside the U.S. and Canada and it > doesn't articulate the current focus being limited to service requests or > reporting issues that concern public space. I've started to advocate that we > rename the specific reporting functionality we are working on now to a more > universal name such as "Public Responder" while keeping Open311 as an > umbrella term that still makes sense to those familiar with 311 as a > standard point of contact for public services. > > > We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management service, > where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile > (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single product/point > of contact to interface with. > > > > > > I would expect this to be the case for most implementations of the Open311 > API as well. > > > Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our customers > wishes. > Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the > emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that > always just works). > > > > I totally agree and that is much of the motivation behind this work > > > They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various > bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional civic > service. > > > > But they do want a choice of which smartphone platform they are using and > where they are living and what language they are speaking. Until everyone > has an Android-based phone or every mobile phone supports a robust HTML5 > stack of open standards (like PhoneGap or Palm WebOS) there are going to > have to be an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles. People > just want things to work, but they just want them to work *their way*. > This is why open systems are important. I think a major benefit of making > this specification capable of handling SMS is that SMS is the most > ubiquitous standard and something everyone is familiar with. > > Ultimately the idea is to parallel the consistency and ubiquity of the 311 > shortcode as a point of contact with more robust technology. > > And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of > agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. One > system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask for. > > > > > I believe that ultimately open systems increase interoperability as well as > "functionality that always just works" in the sense that dysfunction is > often caused by lack of interoperability or a lack of development in the > absence of any competing innovation (eg Internet Explorer 6) > > > I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether the > 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. > > > > > Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on this? > > > Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem space? > Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be > encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is just > the pace in the take up of the technology. > > > > > Right now I think this collaboration is happening with a pretty solid mix > of involvement from government, not profit, and private enterprise. Actual > implementation would be encompassed within government infrastructure if > government decides to, but I don't think that implementation should have to > depend on government being first to act - hence FixMyStreet, SeeClickFix, et > al. > > > Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is currently > filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of Reports to > engage both Citizens and the Authorities. > > > > This sounds great. Glad to see this developing down under. I would think > that issue management technology like Open311 and that facilitated by > Neatstreets could ultimate facilitate interactions that would inform > processes like Future Melbourne <http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/> > > > Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't derail > the project from it's excellent intentions. > > Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than > location), but if i can i will. > > > > Keep the feedback coming. It's great to keep the conversation moving any > way possible. > > > Rich > Application Developer > Neatstreets > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271650161269 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions. > > > > -- > Philip Ashlock > The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org > phil@... | @philipashlock <http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | > (360) 389-2741 > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271696161320<http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271696161320> > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > discuss@.... Please contact > discuss-manager@... for questions. >
Attachments
-
From: Jennifer Bell
Subject: Re: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 22, 2010 08:33 PM
I'm Jennifer Bell, current E.D. of VisibleGovernment.ca, a Canadian non-profit that promotes online transparency. One of our projects is http://fixmystreet.ca, an open source 311 reporting website that's a clone of MySociety's fixmystreet.com. We are currently working on supporting mobile apps, and some volunteers are coding a reference IPhone implementation that may or may not be finished at a code-athon (http://opendataottawa.ca/) this weekend. While I've been on this list for ages, working out a mobile API had me come back to see how the Open311 spec was developing. Open311 is something we'd definitely like to support. Jennifer Bell On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Rich Larcombe <richard.larcombe@...> wrote: > Thanks Phil. > > Just to get back to you in regards to: > > I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether > the > 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it viable. > > > >>Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on >this? > > Without going into great detail (as this after all is an introduction thread > - although happy to start one if you think warrants deeper discussion). > > From my limited reading of Open311, my understanding is that the proposal > essentially covers the creation of the GoeWeb DNS, plus the goal of a > standard format API, which is to be implemented independently by each > Jurisdiction. > Personally i foresee the need for a 'Full' mapping service or 'Mothership' > to broker the communications on behalf of all parties in a given region > (such as FMS/SCF&NS already provide). > i.e Store and own the issues/reports, and allow all parties to access and > change the information at a single source. This may only be semi automated > for most Jurisdictions at present, but that's the beauty of the mothership. > It can allow integration at various levels simultaneously, whilst buffering > the end users (Citizens) from the chaos. > For me this greatly reduces the complexity in mapping the many user > applications to the many jurisdictions. The problems / anomalies that do > arise (we have already have experienced a stack load with the 25-30 > Authorities we're interfacing with) can be solved just the once. This is not > so easy with a many to many application relationship especially with a > moving spec. > > I appreciate this would be at a cost of restricting an open philosophy, but > if the prime goal is to best serve the citizen, i think i know which > solution I'd be backing. > > Also, on the handset choices, yes i agree multiple platforms is must. We're > about to release Blackberry, and upgrade our Android and Iphone. The next > choice is not so obvious, 3 are considered potential, not sure yet which one > we'll go with). > Still struggle to see the benefit for the user in having a choice of > applications on a single handset for a simple picture sending task, i'd > always just use the one that had the highest chance of getting my report to > the Jurisdiction. > > And thanks for link, we've already had encouraging meetings with the Lord > Mayor's office, have to say we're very lucky to live in such a great city as > Melbourne. > > Rich > > p.s (we term Jurisdictions as 'Responsible Authorities', as for us it > includes Transport Agencies / Charity Organisations / Commerical companies > as well Local & State wide Government Groups). Will try to keep to your > terminology though - as have a feeling we Aussies could be in the minority > here! > > > > > > On 20 April 2010 02:56, Philip Ashlock <phil@...> wrote: >> >> Hey Rich, thanks for joining the conversation. I've left some of my own >> responses inline below: >> >> >> Rich Larcombe wrote: >> >> On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: >> >> >> To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to >> briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with >> >> this effort. I'll go first. >> >> >> Hi Phil and all >> >> Before involving myself in discussions, thought it best to introduce >> myself to >> hopefully help others better understand the reasons for my perspective. >> My Name is Rich Larcombe, and I've been one of the technical leads on >> Neatstreets since it's inception, mid last year. >> We operate out of Melbourne, and currently our 'Report Management' Scope >> is >> limited to include only Australia and New Zealand. >> >> Whilst having spent the first couple of months watching open311's >> developments >> with great envy, my views (along with our product roadmap) have taken a >> very >> different direction in order to best serve the Citizens downunder. >> >> I deliberately termed our service as Report Management, as believe this >> helps >> define our main difference compared against the 311 proposal. >> >> >> Yeah, Open311 isn't a very good name outside the U.S. and Canada and it >> doesn't articulate the current focus being limited to service requests or >> reporting issues that concern public space. I've started to advocate that we >> rename the specific reporting functionality we are working on now to a more >> universal name such as "Public Responder" while keeping Open311 as an >> umbrella term that still makes sense to those familiar with 311 as a >> standard point of contact for public services. >> >> >> We're effectively creating a self-contained mapping and management >> service, >> where a single (and very simple) set of taxonomy exists and both Mobile >> (Citizens) and Responsible Authorities (Councils) have a single >> product/point >> of contact to interface with. >> >> >> >> >> I would expect this to be the case for most implementations of the Open311 >> API as well. >> >> >> Our philosophy has developed in line with what we believe are our >> customers >> wishes. >> Citizens desire a single service point they can depend on (much like the >> emergency number - Country wide access, basic reporting functionality that >> always just works). >> >> >> I totally agree and that is much of the motivation behind this work >> >> They don't need or want the choice of an array of Mobile Apps with various >> bells and whistles (and advertising) for this type of very functional >> civic >> service. >> >> >> But they do want a choice of which smartphone platform they are using and >> where they are living and what language they are speaking. Until everyone >> has an Android-based phone or every mobile phone supports a robust HTML5 >> stack of open standards (like PhoneGap or Palm WebOS) there are going to >> have to be an array of Mobile Apps with various bells and whistles. People >> just want things to work, but they just want them to work their way. This is >> why open systems are important. I think a major benefit of making this >> specification capable of handling SMS is that SMS is the most ubiquitous >> standard and something everyone is familiar with. >> >> Ultimately the idea is to parallel the consistency and ubiquity of the 311 >> shortcode as a point of contact with more robust technology. >> >> And Councils basically just don't want change. Working with a multitude of >> agencies & app developers is not seen as an efficient use of technology. >> One >> system that plays nice with their internal systems is all that they ask >> for. >> >> >> >> I believe that ultimately open systems increase interoperability as well >> as "functionality that always just works" in the sense that dysfunction is >> often caused by lack of interoperability or a lack of development in the >> absence of any competing innovation (eg Internet Explorer 6) >> >> I am a believer in open systems & open frameworks, but i question whether >> the >> 311 partial (URL) mapping service really goes far enough to make it >> viable. >> >> >> >> Are you talking about GeoWeb DNS? Can you elaborate on this? >> >> Should private enterprise be coming up with a solution in this problem >> space? >> Probably not, think everyone agrees that this should all ideally be >> encompassed within government infrastructure - but the problem here is >> just >> the pace in the take up of the technology. >> >> >> >> Right now I think this collaboration is happening with a pretty solid mix >> of involvement from government, not profit, and private enterprise. Actual >> implementation would be encompassed within government infrastructure if >> government decides to, but I don't think that implementation should have to >> depend on government being first to act - hence FixMyStreet, SeeClickFix, et >> al. >> >> Not dissimilar to both fixmystreet and seeclickfix, Neatstreets is >> currently >> filling the void of providing publicly accessible web management of >> Reports to >> engage both Citizens and the Authorities. >> >> >> >> This sounds great. Glad to see this developing down under. I would think >> that issue management technology like Open311 and that facilitated by >> Neatstreets could ultimate facilitate interactions that would inform >> processes like Future Melbourne >> >> Open311 is a fantastic initiative, i just hope the practicalities don't >> derail >> the project from it's excellent intentions. >> >> Not sure how i can contribute from such a distance (viewpoint more than >> location), but if i can i will. >> >> >> >> Keep the feedback coming. It's great to keep the conversation moving any >> way possible. >> >> Rich >> Application Developer >> Neatstreets >> >> >> -- >> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2010/04/1271650161269 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... >> for questions. >> >> >> -- >> Philip Ashlock >> The Open Planning Project - http://www.openplans.org >> phil@... | @philipashlock | (360) 389-2741 >> >> -- >> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271696161320 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... >> for questions. > > > > -- > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1271719160601 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > discuss@.... Please contact discuss-manager@... > for questions. > -- http://visiblegovernment.ca RSS Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/VisiblegovernmentcaBlog
-
-
-
-
From: benton
Subject: Re: Introductions
Date: Apr 19, 2010 02:42 PM
On Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM, Philip Ashlock wrote: > To get a sense of who this community is, it'd be nice for each of us to > briefly introduce ourselves and mention what we hope to accomplish with > this effort. I'll go first. > > I work at The Open Planning Project in NYC doing everything from project > management to web design to advocating open data and open standards. My > background is primarily information architecture and web design. I bike > commute to work daily and see issues that should be reported to 311 > services several times a week. I haven't always had the best experience > reporting things though, mostly just because of how long one has to be > on the phone to report something simple. My objective with this effort > is to create a very simple standard that will allow developers and > different city governments to more easily work together building tools > that can directly serve to improve cities while making it even easier > and more engaging for everybody to contribute to that process. I also > see some longer term potential in this effort: it can be a strong but > simple example of how beneficial it is for cities to work together on > technology and it can be a strong, but simple example of how meaningful > and accessible civic participation can be. > > Phil > Greetings everyone, My name is Benton and I work for ISC (www.goisc.com), a software development company based in Tallahassee, Florida. ISC is the developer of a .NET-based mapping application development framework called MapDotNet (www.mapdotnet.com) and specializes in building solutions with Microsoft products. We were recently drawn to the Open 311 initiative out of a project we did for our long-time customer, City of Miami. The original work for the City of Miami was to replace an older, outdated mapping application for visualizing their 311 service requests and code enforcement violations, but quickly grew into a complete SaaS we’ve branded as HeyGov! (www.heygov.com). The main goal of HeyGov! is to open up communications between government and citizens by providing an engaging map-centric UI, mobile apps, analysis tools and a CRM. >From a technology standpoint, one of the cool things (we think) about HeyGov! is that it is completely cloud-hosted in Windows Azure and it is built to easy extend to any entity that wants to sign up. We’re working on a complete CRM component for those entities that don’t have a good management solution in place or want to upgrade. We look forward to contributing. Benton Belcher benton.belcher@...
text.html (text/html) 1.8 kB
text.html (text/html) 8.0 kB
Forgot your password?
New user?