Home » Posts tagged 'open formats' (Page 3)

Tag Archives: open formats

Our mission

Free Government Information (FGI) is a place for initiating dialogue and building consensus among the various players (libraries, government agencies, non-profit organizations, researchers, journalists, etc.) who have a stake in the preservation of and perpetual free access to government information. FGI promotes free government information through collaboration, education, advocacy and research.

Job losses in recessions visualized

Recently this graphic was posted on the "The Gavel" blog of the Speaker of the House (What 3.6 Million Jobs Lost Over 13 Months Looks Like, by "Karina," February 6th, 2009). It shows the number of jobs lost (and recovered) in the recessions of 1990, 2001, and 2008. By juxtaposing the three time periods over each other starting with the peak job month and showing employment change by month, it gives a startling comparison that highlights the severity of the current situation. It also implies that we will have a long time to wait before we reach our previous peak month.

I was curious about this graph and did a little follow up that I share below. Data librarians may find this a bit tedious, but for those who have never used raw data, it may be useful as an illustration of the difference between "data" (the raw numbers that you put into statistical software) and "statistics" (the human-viewable tables and graphs that we see in publications).

Unfortunately, as is often the case with statistical information, the source given for the graphic is incomplete: simply "Bureau of Labor Statistics." I could not find the graphic itself on the bls.gov site, so I assume that the chart was constructed from BLS data, specifically, the Current Population Survey or the Current Employment Statistics Survey. These two surveys count employment differently -- one is a survey of individuals and the other is a survey of employers.

There is a similar, but not identical, chart ("Percent change in total nonfarm employment, from beginning of recession) in the January 2009 (released February 6, 2009) Current Employment Statistics Highlights, Monthly (Bureau of Labor Statistics), so my guess is that someone at the Speaker's office built the chart from the raw CES data.

Just out of curiosity, I went to the CES "Most Requested Statistics webpage and downloaded "Total Nonfarm Employment - CES0000000001" for 1990 through the end of 2008. Raw data suitable for analysis even look "raw," not even like a statistical table:

1990,Jan,109151
1990,Feb,109396
1990,Mar,109611
1990,Apr,109651
1990,May,109800
1990,Jun,109817
1990,Jul,109775
1990,Aug,109567
1990,Sep,109485
1990,Oct,109324
1990,Nov,109180
1990,Dec,109120
1991,Jan,109001
1991,Feb,108695
1991,Mar,108535
1991,Apr,108324
1991,May,108196
1991,Jun,108283
...

Of course, it is relatively easy, using statistical software, to construct tables and graphs from raw data. Here, for example, is a published statistical table with essentially the same raw information (but from CPS, not CES) that I downloaded. (See the full table from Employment from the BLS household and payroll surveys: summary of recent trends, February 6, 2009).

By using the raw data to create a graph, one can tell a story that has more impact than just a table of numbers. It is relatively easy to get these data into statistical software. I used Excel and Stata to create a small time-series data file. I organized it by month (from month "1" to month "48") with each row of the data file having data for 3 recessions. The first row has data for the first month of the three recessions, the second row has data for the second month, etc. The CES data has employment totals in millions. For example, the employment for 2008:

 
138152 
138080 
137936 
137814 
137654 
137517 
137356 
137228 
137053 
136732 
136352 
135755 
135178 

I had to compute a new variable for each recession: the cumulative number of jobs lost. So, for example, 2008:

138152	 0
138080	-72
137936	-216
137814	-338
137654	-498
137517	-635
137356	-796
137228	-924
137053	-1099
136732	-1420
136352	-1800
135755	-2397
135178	-2974

The first 12 months with all three recessions (v1, v2, v3) and the computed variables (1990, 2001, 2008) look like this:

month   v1  1990    v2      2001    v3       2008
1   109817    0     132530    0     138152   0
2   109775  -42     132500  -30     138080  -72
3   109567  -250    132219  -311    137936  -216
4   109485  -332    132175  -355    137814  -338
5   109324  -493    132047  -483    137654  -498
6   109180  -637    131922  -608    137517  -635
7   109120  -697    131762  -768    137356  -796
8   109001  -816    131518  -1012   137228  -924
9   108695  -1122   131193  -1337   137053  -1099
10  108535  -1282   130901  -1629   136732  -1420
11  108324  -1493   130723  -1807   136352  -1800
12  108196  -1621   130591  -1939   135755  -2397

Here is a complete tab-separated-values version of the data file I constructed. Then I used Stata to build a graph and it looks very much like the one at the Speaker's Blog.


Of course, when one tells one story, one leaves out other stories. This graphic doesn't show that the starting points of the recessions were different: 1990: 109 million 2001: 132 million 2008: 138 million

Open re-usable government information

One could use the raw data to tell a lot of different stories and analyze the data in many different ways. And that brings me to the connection between all this and why we need to be sure that government information is not just "free as in beer" but also "free as in open."

It is important for statistical agencies to publish statistics to help us understand their raw data. But, it is also essential that they provide us with the raw data so that we can better understand their statistics and do our own analyses. Most of the statistical agencies of the U.S. government do an excellent job of making their raw data easily available. In fact, the rest of government would do well to use statistical agencies as a model for instantiating their information in usable and re-usable formats (in addition to any publishing and presentation of their data/information) so that the information, whether it is text or images or video or sound or numbers, can be used, reused, analyzed, stored, and preserved.

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Recommendations on Open Government from computer scientists and computing practitioners

The Washington policy committee of the Association for Computing Machinery, the professional association that represents computer scientists and computing practitioners, released its Policy Recommendations on Open Government today. The really important thing about these recommendations is that they reflect an understanding that there is a difference between "presenting" information, usually in the form of a web site, and providing the underlying data that anyone can then "present" or use or re-use. As David Robinson said in an earlier proposal, "[I]s a government monopoly on 'presentations' of the data the best way...? Probably not. If Congress orders the federal bureaucracy to provide a web site for end users, then we will all have to live with the one web site they cook up" (The (Ironic) Best Way to Make the Bailout Transparent, By David Robinson, Freedom to Tinker, January 27th, 2009) Among the recommendations:

  • Data published by the government should be in formats and approaches that promote analysis and reuse of that data.
  • Citizens should be able to download complete datasets of regulatory, legislative or other information, or appropriately chosen subsets of that information, when it is published by government.
  • Citizens should be able to directly access government-published datasets using standard methods such as queries via an API (Application Programming Interface).
See also: New USACM Poilcy Recommendations on Open Government, By David Robinson, Freedom to Tinker, February 5th, 2009.
Today's statement puts the weight of America's computing professionals behind the push for machine-readable government data.
Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Open formats

Over at the Open House Project mailing list there has been a long discussion recently of how to make sure we have long-term, open, free, public access to Congressional and Presidential videos. (See also: Congress on YouTube and Should Obama ditch YouTube?) Today, Clay Shirky posted a clear and concise and persuasive summary of why we need open formats. (Re: Open video, Clay Shirky, Jan. 28, 2009.)

I was the head of the technical work on the Library of Congress's digitial preservation network (NDIIPP) in the early part of the decade, and when we undertook a survey of threats to long-term preservation of digital material, we assumed, dumb bunnies that we were, that we were dealing with issues of storage, redundancy and migration costs. It turned out, though, that the biggest threat to long-term preservation isn't hardware or cost, it's format; proprietary formats don't just happen to hamper unexpected future uses, that's what they are _designed_ to do. If you had an ASCII file and a WordStar file, both from 1987, and had to open and read each one as quickly as you could, what would the difference in elapsed seconds be? There has been some back and forth on this list about possible threats to putting USG-created materials into the hands of commercial entities. I'm on record as worrying about that precisely because path dependence on commercial motivation can easily come a cropper, and I recently had an experience that seemed to highlight that risk. Last Friday, I heard a talk at the Smithsonian from the awesome George Oates, who was instrumental in getting the Flickr Image Commons going. It was an inspiring talk, and when I went to introduce myself afterwards and we were talking about what might be next, she told me Yahoo had cut her job in the December round of layoffs. Of course. Why shouldn't Yahoo have done that -- the Commons may have been good PR for them in 2008, but its hard to argue that the cost is going to be recouped in revenues somehow. When we are talking about public goods, we are talking about goods that don't flourish in the commercial market *by definition.* We need to make that part of all the systemic thinking we do about open data; Ogg for video would be a great addition to the arsenal.
There have been some excellent discussions going on over at the Open House Project Google Group lately. If you don't usually monitor that list, you might want to browse through the last couple of weeks posts. Continue reading

Continue Reading →

SEC mandates open standard for financial records

SEC mandates open standard for financial records, By Gautham Nagesh, NextGov.com, (12/19/2008).

The Securities and Exchange Commission passed a rule on Thursday requiring public companies and mutual funds to use a standard electronic format to publish financial information, bringing more transparency, and presumably oversight, to corporate balance sheets and earnings. SEC commissioners voted 4-1 to require companies to use extensible business reporting language, or XBRL, when filing financial disclosures. The commission also required them to publish information on the SEC's Web site as well as their own. XBRL is based on software programming called extensible mark-up language, or XML, which uses tags attached to documents so users can easily find and share electronic data....
Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Support OpenDocument

OpenDocument campaign page gets a revamp: Support OpenDocument. This is where you can find out what it is, what you can do, who else is using it and more.

The OpenDocument format (ODF) is a format for electronic office documents, such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word-processing documents. The OpenDocument format is supported by free software applications such as OpenOffice.org, AbiWord and KOffice.
Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Latest Posts

Latest Comments

Blogroll

Archives

Meta

Archives

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM