Is this statement based on your claim that, “…the Temporal Coverage of the dataset is undefined.”?

If so, isn’t the Temporal Coverage for all data.australia.gov.au datasets specified on the download page for each dataset?

For example, the download page for Australian Federal Electoral Boundaries clearly states both the Date Published and Date Updated.

In fact, one of the core aims of our entries is to make it even EASIER for people to engage in their common representative democracy by knowing where they live and who represents them.

As for disqualification, we have already withdrawn ourselves from that part of the competition that is impacted by the public voting.

Thank you for your support of our application.

Wrongdoing is still wrong, even for noble ends. You should have followed the correct channels such as contacting the organisers and making strong statements with the Gov 2.0 taskforce if necessary. This is Australia we live in a land of laws and rules. I don’t want to start a war here, your mashup is probably the most useful I’ve seen here, but there’s little civic value in breaking rules.

I hope you reconsider your statements.

It contains neither the set of electorates currently in force as per the 2007 election, and it doesn’t contain the set of electorates that will be used in 2010.

It’s a broken release and any mashup that chose to use the specific revision linked to on data.australia.gov.au would be broken essentially by design.

This creates some uncertainty, because the Temporal Coverage of the dataset is undefined. It doesn’t say you have to use that specific release, but it doesn’t say you can’t use another release of the same dataset.

We are using the more correct official 2007 version of the same dataset.

That is, we are using COM_ELB_04032008.MID/MIF instead of COM_ELB_12112008.MID/MIF. It is the same dataset at a different point in time.

The data is largely correlative between the two on the Easy coast (where distributions have only just been completed). So we are using about 2/3rd identical data to the current dataset.

If the judgement is that using a different file name, containing the same data and of the same dataset, somehow doesn’t count as “using the dataset”, then I suppose we could do a centroid correlation between the two and make sure the actual (identical) bytes came from that file.

We already import three releases of that file into our database (The 04032008, 12112008 and a new post-redistribution one), we’d just need to change a dozen lines of code in the schema compiler.

But that would seem like pointless makework to me.

From downloading the Australian Federal Election Boundaries dataset from data.australia.gov.au, the data appears to refer to both Durack and O’Connor.

Your entry states the use of just 1 data.australia.gov.au dataset

data.australia.gov.au datasets used
The Australian Federal Election Boundaries

I understand this means your entry complies with competition eligibility rule #3.

Have you actually used this dataset in your mashup?

The data is based on the electoral boundaries at the 2007 election.

Right now they are the ‘active’ divisions. Redistributions don’t become ‘active’ until the next general election.

So we return data based on the 2007 election. There is a plan to return a “you are in X division now, you will be in Y division at the next general election” but we’re not there yet.

- I typed in Karratha WA into your mashup but couldn’t find Durack.
- Similarly typed in Esperance WA, couldnt find O’Connor.

I thought the Federal Election Boundaries were redistributed to Durack and O’Connor around the end of 2008.