I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
Each policy defines "open data" differently.
First off, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego's policies do not define open data at all.
Long Beach defines it as "...machine readable, it can be freely used, reused, and redistributed by anyone, and built on without restrictions."
Los Angeles defines it as "...raw data generated or collected by government agencies made freely available for use by the public."
San Jose defines it as "...Data made open and freely available to the public to be republished, manipulated, or used in any other way without restriction."
In regards to Data Licensing -
San Jose's policy states that the city will use open licenses with no restrictions on, "copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, adapting, or otherwise using the information..."
Oakland's policy states that all open data will be published "free re-use to ensure clarity of copyright without legal responsibility or liability for publishing such data"
San Francisco's policy gives responsibility to the Chief Data Officer to set requirements for licensing. However,"creative commons" license is mentioned as a potential choice.
Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego's policies do not mention data licensing requirements.
In San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles all City Departments must comply with the requirements set forth in the open data policy.
In Long Beach and San Jose, all city departments who report to the City Manager must comply with the open data policy.
Oakland's policy does not specify who must comply.
Long Beach's Open Data Policy specifically states that the city should prioritize open and machine readable formats and lists options to use. They are .csv, .json, and .xml.
San Jose's Policy states that the city should use machine readable and "non-proprietary, publicly available, and open formats". No specifics are given.
Both Los Angeles and Oakland policies mention that the data produced should be machine readable but give no indication of what that means.
San Francisco and San Diego's policies do not mention machine readability at all. This issue will most likely be outlined in the Chief Data Officer's implementation plan.
Both San Jose and San Francisco have metadata requirements that are outlined in their data policies.
San Jose - name of department, name of dataset owner in department, how often the data is updated, date and time of the last update, data labels, and data field explanation (data dictionary)
San Francisco- title, description, tags, last update, published, contact information, unique identifier, and public access level.
While, San Francisco had metadata requirement the city does not have any standards for machine readability or licensing.
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more
I am adding this article to contribute to the research of Open Data in California.Read more