ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION
Date:
Time:
Venue:
11 December 2012
10:45am-4:15pm
Blue Room -The National Archives
Attendees: Chair
Members
Professor David Rhind,
Neil Ackroyd, Expert Member
Bob Barr, Expert Member
Keith Dugmore, Expert Member
David Lammey, Representative Member for Northern Ireland
Paul Longley, Expert Member
Duncan Macniven, Representative Member for Scotland
Hugh Neffendorf, Expert Member
Hilary Newiss, Expert Member
Shane O’Neill, Expert Member
Prabhat Vaze, Expert Member
Phillip Webb, Expert Member
Nonmembers:
1.
Ed Parsons, Geospatial Technologist, Google
Annette Dellevoet, Network and Investment Planning team, Sainsburys
Dr Harvey Lewis, Research Director, Deloitte Analytics
Nigel Clark, Director of Business Development, GB Group
Angela Latta, Deputy Director, BIS Data Strategy and Services Team
Romina Ahmed, Transparency Team Cabinet Office –(Data.Gov)
Alistair Calder, Head of Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Beyond 2011, Office for National Statistics
Beth Brook Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Marcia Jackson, Head of Standards, The National Archives
Paul Edwards, Secretariat of APPSI, The National Archives
Welcome, introductions and apologies
The Chairman welcomed members to the 38th meeting of APPSI.
1.1
The Chairman noted that he had received apologies of absence by members; Michael Jennings, Bill
Oates, Patricia Seex, Peter Weinand, and Dean White.
1.2
The Chairman also noted that Carol Tullo Director of Information Policy and Services at The
National Archives also had given her apologies through illness.
1.3
The Chairman welcomed Annette Dellevoett, Dr Harvey Lewis, Nigel Clark, and Ed Parsons to the
meeting.
1
2.
APPSI Seminar Discussion: Private Sector Perspectives on PSI and Open Data
2.1
The Chairman set the seminar discussion around the following questions:

Will much business take up happen in the near future?

If not, what are the barriers which business sees to it occurring (e.g. costs, documentation) and
how might they be overcome?

How level is the playing field between public sector users and others? Is there a case for more
public data free at the point of use to all sectors? Which are the priority PSI resources?

Is the business community content to access very raw data or does it require quality-controlled,
refined data?

Is continuity of supply an important factor?

Should government be collecting different types of data which would be more attractive to
business or should government remove itself from the data collection business and leave it to the
private sector?

To what degree does business need consistent international data sets (e.g. road networks,
postcodes / zipcodes)?
2.2
Annette Dellevoett, Network and Investment Planning team, Sainsbury’s
Annette began by exploring how a big retail business such as Sainsbury’s utilises data and then offered
her personal views on the value of Open Data for the private sector.
Annette noted that J Sainsbury plc operates a total of 1083 stores comprising both supermarkets and
convenience stores. Over 60% of the UK population lives within 10 minutes of a ’Sainsbury’s store. She
explained that the data Sainsbury’s are particularly interested in are those which enable them to forecast
sales for new stores, and geospatial data that help them assess acquisition opportunities as well as data
that identify competitor trends and activity. She noted that demographic data resource such as Census,
ACORN, postcode data and mapping details are particularly critical to their business.
In responding to the discussion questions Annette felt that raw data was generally preferable as long as it
was clean and well-formatted with good metadata so each field is clearly understandable. In terms of
their own business use, a consistent delivery format is essential to facilitate processing the data easily and
quickly. For example, CSV, where appropriate, is easy to load into any analysis packages such as GIS
tools and statistical packages such as Excel.
Annette said that continuity of supply was also crucial for business, as data may be loaded into models or
built into in-house analysis tools to be used on an ongoing basis. In some cases this aspect of a dataset
may override cost (ACORN versus OAC example). Annette thought that the benefits of Open Data were
not only cost savings from ‘free data’ but also the time saved by not dealing with onerous licensing
processes to use the data. She argued that open licences would encourage entrepreneurs to develop
innovative products from the data and would help to make these products cost-effective to market.
Examples include ACORN & Geolytix Postcode Sector Boundaries, both of which were originally built
upon PSI. Annette however also argued that continuity of supply was at least as important as cost.
In addressing the question of how level is the playing field between public sector users and others,,
Annette very much agreed with the premise of calling for more data to be free at the point of use. She
noted that many of the datasets covered by the PSMA have been collected using funding provided by
millions of citizens and 2.3m businesses through taxation. She explained that by effectively being denied
no-cost access to the data the point of use, the customer /user is being charged twice. Annette also
personally believed that the collection of new, additional data by government was slightly superfluous
2
and that the government focus should be given to identifying and maximising the value of the data it
already holds.
2.3 Ed Parsons
Ed Parsons outlined the background to Google’s involvement in the data business. He stressed that their
original business model of leasing data from existing providers proved not to be scalable, largely because
of the large number of data suppliers involved and the complexity and cost of engaging in the IPR
definition process. For this reason, Google had focussed increasingly on gathering its own data. He very
much supported the implementation of the UK Open Government Licence which seems to work well
but he remained of the view that the no copyright regime (and no licensing) approach used by the US
federal government was more effective and certainly easier for business. In fact, he suggested that the
level of innovation in the USA was much better due to the public domain approach to PSI with no licence
required.
A consequence of the Google model being predicated on revenue derived from advertising rather than
charging for data use is that they did not know who the end-customers were in many cases: this was true
for something around 800,000 of the one million web sites hosting Google Earth. He felt this situation
would increase the pressure to develop open data.
He explained that forty percent of search terms on Google are geo-related data. In terms of the priority
for Open Data Ed therefore argued that the National Address register was a key data set.
In response to a question on how to cover the costs of Open address data and how to maintain its quality
under such a regime, Ed felt that there was scope to charge for changes to the register with government
capitalising the cost over a number of years.
2.4 Dr Harvey Lewis, Research Director, Deloitte Analytics
Dr Lewis explained that Delloite had undertaken research on the business perspectives on the use of
Open Data for the Open Data Institute. Harvey explained that looking at the supply of and demand for
Open Data globally there was no shortage of supply. However the results of their research [see his
presentation on the APPSI web site] showed that there is distinct variability of quality and quantity of
data provided for reuse in data portals globally. Dr Lewis noted that data.gov.uk for example had a higher
number of users, compared with that of France which had a far greater volume of data held on its portal.
Harvey explained that business users were far more receptive to the provision of select, high quality data
rather than a greater supply of low or medium quality data.
Concerns were raised by business responses the research about the defensibility of their product if based
upon an open and freely available source. Some of the other key feedback received included that
businesses were prepared to pay for data if they knew they would get a better quality of service and
consistent and reliable data. Some businesses responded to Deloitte’s research saying that they did not
use Open Data at all.
A selection of views on Open Data collated from business responses to the Deloitte researchwere:
 “If you can’t get the data through an API, it’s as good as not being available.”
 “Businesses don’t want gold-plated data; they want it raw and provided at lowest possible cost.”
 “Investors are worried about the unpredictability of the environment.”
 “It takes a long time for information businesses to emerge: this involving stabilising investor
decisions, stabilising the data and rendering it into a format that can be used. Only when this is
done are you ready to go to market.”
 “How do you add value to free data? By looking at each sector to identify where the current market
proposition is failing.”
3
On barriers to greater use of Open Data, those questioned said these are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of awareness of Open Data (and PSI in general)
Perceived lack of quality and consistency
No guarantees of long-term availability
Lack of skills and infrastructure to process data
Perceived anti-competitive practices from some public sector bodies
Lack of free core reference data
Lack of consistency/data standards across different publishers
Failure of imagination by larger businesses
Dr Lewis argued that for business to engage, raw data is not sufficient: context, quality, consistency,
accuracy, and availability all need to be addressed, but only to the extent governed or permitted by the
public task of the originating public body. He also felt that lessons need to be learned from successful
categories, e.g. transport, and successful practices such as trading funds. Harvey also maintained that, to
have greatest economic impact, focus on priority sectors and data categories -- including core reference
data - need to be addressed. He concluded that Open Data is the means, not the end in a mixed data
ecology and that companies that get the integration right will succeed.
2.5 Nigel Clark GB Group
Nigel began by giving some context to the work of GB Group. He explained that they are a company
which verifies consumers' identities remotely to help combat ID fraud, money laundering and restrict
access to under-age content, purchases and gambling. Nigel said that as part of their operations, they
collate data to provide an accurate picture of the UK’s population and property to locate and verify the
right –individual [see his presentation on the APPSI web site].
Nigel then went on to discuss the virtues of open data, and admitted limited previous attention to it. He
stressed that GB Group did not directly deal with a large amount of Open Data. He said their perception
has been that Open Data is very difficult to engage with and often perceived it to be difficult to navigate
through to find the data you really want to reuse. Nigel noted that they often found that the information
they thought would be useful was provided in either PDF or other unusable formats. He also said there
was a perception that a lot of Open Data is incomplete and out of date and unreliable in terms of
guaranteed continuity of supply.
Nigel believed that overall GB Group was agnostic to the virtues of particular data, stating that they tend
to be directed to relevant data by the clients themselves and very little of this is currently what would be
defined as Open Data. Nigel strongly argued that the battle of permission in seeking to use Open Data
through licences, versus its wide availability to others, meant that the majority of Open Data is not a
viable option for GB Group to utilise commercially.
Nigel acknowledged though that there is exciting potential in Open Data on matters relating to the
following data::
 Traffic Times from LAs
 River Levels and Flow Rates
 DEFRA claims/payments
 Divorces
 Valuation Office property data, Land Registry data
 number of rooms in dwellings, plus the name of the current registered owner
 General Register Office Data (Disclosure of Death Registration Information) current and historical–
why is this chargeable?)
4
In terms of improving interest in Open Data, Nigel called for:
 Support to users to appreciate and navigate the data (free!)
 Central mashing of Open Data
 Consistency of supply
 Standard formats (CSV) for relatively raw data
 Simplified or no licensing
As a result of this invitation to consider Open Data, Nigel felt that GB Group would now give it more
serious attention.
2.6 APPSI Member observations
From the discussions, members observed that there was clear message from these speakers that:
 The National Address Gazetter should be free at the point of use.
 Public Sector Information (or some of it) is of real value to the private sector – to both end users,
and to resellers (a vital distinction).
 Its use is currently patchy, both because some data is not yet Open, and also a great lack of
awareness.
 Public Sector Information that isn’t yet Open is underused, not only due to cost, but – in many
cases – the complexities of licensing which cause potential users to walk away.
APPSI member Hugh Neffendorf added that a clear message from all the speakers was that licensing in
many ways can be a bigger perceived barrier than cost, and also that to ensure real engagement with and
trust in PSI, business needs to be reassured that there will be continuity of supply.
Members noted that a top priority for access to Open Data was the National Address Gazetteer with other
property datasets such as VOA, Land Registry and planning applications also being a priority.
It was noted that some parts of the private sector want free raw / base data in popular formats (such as
csv), but others also welcome the option of resellers offering it in easily used packages. Tracking how
data are used and who values it, is a real problem. Many members noted that companies such as Google
are more focussed on the platforms that can be created to host the data, rather than analysing what the end
user does with it. Many members felt this was a vital issue when seeking to make the business case for
investing in PSI (such as the next Census).
APPSI members also felt that a clear message given by the speakers is that a stronger emphasis should be
made on providing quality data, rather than maximising the quantity of what is available. They noted the
view by most of the speakers that a lot of the data available on dgdata.gov is not relevant for business
use. Members noted that this view was compatible with APPSI’s focus on prioritising data set availability
and the concept of a National Information Framework.
ACTION: Secretariat to circulate all presentations to APPSI members
3.
Glossary Wiki Exercise developments
3.1
The Chairman welcomed Romina Ahmad to the meeting to discuss the Wiki exercise involving
the APPSI glossary. She explained that initial testing of the first pilot had found that the
moderating process of the glossary wiki exercise tested in the autumn was cumbersome and that
the project needed to be a lot more agile and light touch.
5
3.2
Romina explained that she met APPSI member Bob Barr and the APPSI Secretary to discuss resetting the objectives of the project.
3.2
Romina said that it was agreed that participants of the wiki exercise should be able to provide
suggested terms and alternative definitions to those on the list and that these will be submitted for
approval then suggestion and discussion online by all participants. Participants should also be
able to reference all sources of the glossary and be aware of these sources when feeding back.
3.3
She stated that, whilst it is a consultation to seek validation, it must be recognised that there are
already some data terms that are defined in legislation or approved on existing external glossaries.
It will thus need to be made clear to participants where the contents of terms and definitions are
unlikely to be changed.
3.4
Romina also noted that it is expected that respondents will take part in the consultation online –
but that it is acceptable to exploit alternative feedback channels. She explained that the range of
potential audiences for the wiki have been identified as including APPSI editorial users as well as
Departmental users (in local/national government).
3.5
Romina also set out what the user should expect from the wiki site – these include:








Viewing a full list of the Glossary Terms and the ability to select an individual term.
Being able to comment generally on each Term and Definition
The ability to comment specifically on Terms and Definition and provide proposed amendments
to any wording
Easy access to provide such feedback.
The ability to quote easily from the Terms within the feedback form - citing the whole definition
and term, a sentence or an individual word to facilitate making their proposed edits.
To be able to see their submission published in the consultation pages (alternative definitions and
suggested new terms that will be moderated by APPSI at its discretion) prior to web publication.
Alternative Terms that are approved should appear in a separate list with associated comments
alongside it.
Participants who are feeding back on behalf of an organisation will be encouraged to complete a
more extensive web profile in order to aid post consultation analysis.
3.6
APPSI discussed with Romina the moderating requirements for the wiki exercise. It was agreed
that the moderators should have administration access to alternative definitions and suggested
new terms in order to review all proposals prior to potential web publication. They must also have
the ability to decline these ideas and inform participants, as well as posting a holding message on
the live site. APPSI also agreed that terms approved by the Moderator should appear in a separate
list with associated comments alongside it. There was overall agreement that any moderation by
or for APPSIAPPSI should be ‘light touch’ that allows them to review comments periodically.
3.7
Romina said that, in terms of time scales, they would look to develop the new wiki version in
January with the intention to test and launch the exercise by Spring 2013.
3.8
The Chairman, Hugh Neffendorf , and Bob Barr agreed that the next step for APPSI was to make
the glossary immediately available via the APPSI web pages for general use and comment by
email. Following the wiki consultation exercise, the glossary would continue to be available for
comment but would probably be fairly stable and only be updated periodically.
ACTION: Secretariat to publish APPSI’s glossary work on the APPSI web pages.
6
ACTION: APPSI members Bob Barr and Hugh Neffendorf to liaise with Romina in regard to
glossary wiki developments.
4.
The National Archives Perspective on current PSI Issues
4.1
Beth Brook provided an update to APPSI on the latest developments in Public Sector Information.
Beth noted that since the last APPSI meeting there had been several meetings and compromise
texts from the European Council particularly around charging and also cultural institutions. These
were based on:




European Commission contact with UK Government about its negotiating position and the Open
Data agenda.
Engagement with HM Treasury on charging and the Ministry of Defence on licensing and scope.
Regular engagement with representatives of the cultural sector, with several meetings taking place
with the National Museum Directors' Council and Department for Culture Media and Sport,
British Library and Arts Council England
The outcome of votes by the Industry, Research, and Energy Committee in European Parliament
on the amendments put forward. Those agreed centre around data protection (ensuring
compliance with the Directive ), formats, open standards and machine-readability, charging and
exclusive rights arrangements for digitised cultural resources.
Key dates
 29/11/2012 – European Parliament: Vote in EP ITRE Committee
 17/12/2012 – Trialogues begin between Commission, Presidency and Parliament
 20/12/2012 – Telecommunications Council – PSI on agenda as progress report from Cypriot
Presidency
 10/03/2012 – European Parliament: Vote scheduled at European Parliament Plenary meeting
4.2
4.3
4.4
PSI Directive amendments – Impact Assessment
Beth gave an update on the PSI Directive amendments and Impact Assessment (IA). She
explained that the appraisal stage for the IA had been completed and sent in late November to
Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees and European Affairs Committee in Government for
information. Beth noted that several stakeholder workshops had also taken place with the Public
Data Group and the NHS regarding the IA.
Beth confirmed that the IA will be revised following adoption of the final text of the Directive
early in 2013.
Information policy
Beth noted that the s45 Code of Practice (FOIA datasets section) – Section 45 Code of Practice
(dealing with the new datasets provisions in the FOIA sections 11A and 19) was out for
consultation online between 21 November 2012 and 10 January 2013.
4.5
Beth also highlighted the Review of PSI (Shakespeare survey) – Stephan Shakespeare appointed
as independent chair and Deloittes are carrying out the work, with a commitment to report by
January. Several stakeholder surveys had been carried out – including one for PSIHs, one for reusers and a review of existing analyses.
4.6
Beth reported that there was a new Service Level Agreement between the Queen’s Printer for
Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, which came into force on 01 October 2012.
4.7
Beth also noted the forthcoming events for Open Data:
7


Transparency Board took place on 21 November 2012.
A Licensing Forum was held on the 30 November 2012 for government officials – sessions were
presented by BIS from the department for Business Innovation and Skills on the Data Strategy
Board and on DCE as well as from the department for Communities and Local Government on
data transparency code consultation for local authorities.

Open Data Institute launch on 04 December 2012.

The first meeting in the UK of OGP’s Ministerial Steering Committee
o formally introduced the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM), which will monitor
progress of participating countries against their transparency action plans, and
o Announced the three high-profile figures who will sit on an International Expert Panel to
oversee the work of the IRM (former Irish President Mary Robinson, Sudanese-born
British entrepreneur and open government campaigner Mo Ibrahim, and Mozambican
politician Graça Machel).
4.8

Beth confirmed that the forthcoming events were about to be held:
Open Data User Group meeting on 13 December 2012 – Beth noted that Jim Wretham would be
updating the group on FOIA s45 CoP (datasets) consultation.
Trialogues begin on the 17 December 2012 between European Council/Presidency, and the
European Parliament and Commission.
Telecommunications Council meeting on 20 December to discuss the Digital Agenda for 2013.
17th meeting of the PSI Group in Europe taking place on 24 January 2013.



5.
Minutes and actions of the last meeting
5.1
Because of the necessity to hold the discussion on business views on Open Data in the morning of
the meeting, the minutes were taken at this stage in the meeting. Members approved the minutes
of the APPSI meeting on 21 September 2012 as an accurate record of the matters discussed.
5.2
Actions from previous meetings:
ACTION: Chairman to invite Professor Nigel Shadbolt to a forthcoming APPSI meeting to
discuss the Open Data Institute. Status: Complete The March APPSI meeting is to be held at the
ODI.
ACTION: Bob Barr to continue to refine the glossary document and for it to be reviewed at a
future meeting. Status: Ongoing see Item 6.
ACTION: Patricia Seex and Phillip Webb to submit those definitions related to data cost and
charging for the glossary to Hugh Neffendorf by early October 2012. Status: Completed, version
for wiki exercises is ready.
ACTION: Peter Weinand to provide commentary on the legal definitions within the APPSI
glossary - As above.
ACTION: David Rhind to write forward/covering letter for the National Information Framework
document. Status: Completed, covering letter drafted and NIF paper now published.
ACTION: Secretariat to draft covering submission and forward with covering letter and paper to
the minister’s private office. Status: Completed and acknowledgement that the submission had
been received and read.
8
ACTION: David Rhind and Hugh Neffendorf and the Secretariat to explore publishing the
concept as a journal article. Status: completed David Rhind and Hugh Neffendorf have
published the NIF in the Public Leaders Network and Royal Statistical Society web sites. Further
publication anticipated.
ACTION: APPSI membership to consider how best to engage with the wider PSI community in
proselytising the concept. Status: Completed members have shared with the Chairman and
Secretariat their intended contacts for the NIF and a consolidated list assembled and used for
distribution of alerts to the paper. Further dissemination and activity anticipated.
ACTION: David Rhind to reflect upon the Royal Mail issue, and whether a letter to the
Shareholder Executive would be appropriate. Status: Completed, letter was sent in October to
Stephen Lovegrove.
6.
National Information Framework Responses - the next Steps, APPSI Chair David Rhind, and
Mr Hugh Neffendorf.
6.1
David informed APPSI that the National Information Framework (NIF) paper had now been
published on the Public Leaders Network Guardian website and that he felt progress had been
made in disseminating the paper widely amongst officials
6.2
A discussion took place on a general overview of the responses received so far to the NIF
document. It was agreed that, while some responses had highlighted areas of the paper that will
require further explanation and development of the concept, the overall feel of the responses was
that the discussion paper had been quite widely welcomed.
6.3
Hugh Neffendorf very much felt that it was important to maintain momentum of the progress
made so far with the paper and to avoid it slipping away. It was agreed that, as the next step,
APPSI members should look to consider drafting a series of working papers, to respond in more
detail as to the virtues of a NIF and actions required to achieve it. This would be published on the
website as supporting information to the main paper.
6.4
It was also agreed that the responses received thus far should be made able via the APPSI
website in an appropriate format.
ACTION: Bob Barr to propose a suggested initial list of NIF Working Paper topics to provide
further detail on the virtues of a NIF.
7.
APPSI Planning
7.1
APPSI members discussed the number of meetings for 2013. The Chairman explained that it has
been customary to have five meetings a year. He explained this usually means that two meetings
are usually close together. Given the active nature of the APPSI membership outside of the
meetings, he suggested making the formal meetings quarterly. The APPSI membership agreed to
holding quarterly meetings.
The Secretariat noted that the proposed meetings dates for 2013 would be 11 March 2013, 18
June 2013, 20 September 2013, 09 December 2013.
ACTION: Secretariat to circulate the finalised dates to the APPSI membership.
9
8.
APPSI updates - PSI in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
8.1
The Chairman noted that Duncan Macniven provided a written update (See Annex A).
8.2
David Lammey noted that progress had been made with having a representative on the Data
Strategy Board and described the outcome.
9.
Any Other Business
9.1
The Secretariat confirmed that Neil Ackroyd, Hillary Newiss, Shane O’Neill, Michael Nicholson,
Phillip Webb and Patricia Seex had been approved by the Minster for reappointment until 31
December 2015.
9.2
The Chairman noted that this would be Paul Edwards’ last meeting as the APPSI Secretary and
thanked him for the support he had given to APPSI. Members associated themselves with the
thanks.
Meeting Closed:
The Chairman noted that the next meeting was due to take place on 11 March 2013 at the Open Data
Institute.
ANNEX A APPSI MEETING 11 December 2012
SCOTLAND UPDATE
The Scottish Government published on 19 September its digital strategy
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/6272). Developed jointly with the Convention of
Scottish Local Authorities, the strategy will guide the future actions of the Scottish Government, its
agencies and no departmental bodies accountable to Ministers, the NHS, local government, the police and
fire services and universities and colleges. The Strategy includes a commitment to:





publish as much information as possible concerning the data we hold, and how and when we will
make that data available in re-usable form
open up access to data created and held by the public sector to make our services more transparent
and accountable;
open up access to data created and held by the public sector to provide businesses with the
opportunities to develop new products and services and therefore grow the economy
agree with users and suppliers of ICT systems the most effective common standards to use for
publishing and sharing data, to support the linking of data between datasets regardless of source;
make data accessible in formats that allow and encourage re-use, with re-use possible under
licence terms that are clear, fair, transparent and where possible free."
Implementation of the Strategy is overseen by the Digital Public Services National Board and a series of
sectoral boards, which also offer a mechanism for future priority-setting.
As part of its programme of releasing data in re-useable format, the Scottish Government has
published the database of statutory public notices at: http://opendata.tellmescotland.gov.uk. This takes a
traditional relational database and exposes it as RDF - with virtually zero cost.
10
The Scottish Government is considering commissioning work on the economic and business value of
public sector information to Scotland and the Panel's views on the appropriateness and possible
methodological approaches would be helpful.
Duncan Macniven
30 November 2012
11