At its site Data.Seattle.Gov the city of Seattle last week took a modest but promising next step into the high-transparency world of what's called "Government 2.0" by adding dozens of data sets on a wide variety of public assets, as the Seattle PI.com reported. Now just a click away are lists (in some cases including links to related city web pages) of public viewpoints, museums and galleries, schools, farmers' markets, off-leash dog areas, park and rides, heritage trees, fishing spots, beaches, community centers, public art installations, and so forth. True, this information was already parked at the city's My Neighborhood Map site, but ongoing additions expected to the city data store herald possibilities for a new form of public engagement that could eventually make obsolete today's easy gibes about public Seattle's infatuation with process over product.

City governments have been slow to use the internet as a true collaborative tool. That's all changing now — from San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver B.C., Washington D.C. and New York City to London. All this comes against a backdrop of major data-based transparency projects at the federal level: one championed in the U.S. by none other than President Barack Obama, and another in England by one of the real inventors of the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee. The focus is on voluntary cooperation by the data-keepers, rather than the old adversarial approach involving Freedom of Information Act or state Public Disclosure Act requests by journalists and advocacy groups. Not that these tools aren't still important. But the scales of democracy have been irrevocably tilted by the considerable, if somewhat randomly-chosen public data resources already online, plus flash-organizing, blogs, social media, and like. Removing barriers between constituents and public information — or "liberating the data" — means a greater potential for building trust between officialdom and constituents.

And so, just for starters, city government data sets are already being used by software developers for handy applications, many of which run on mobile phones, to help you find public assets while you're out and about, or even stay safe on the way home after a night of clubbing. One window into this world is at the DataSF App Showcase. With the Seattle information now available, it's easy to envision a special app for parents; call it "Seattle Parent Map," that might mash up the data sets on locations of wading pools, swimming pools, city parks, beaches, viewpoints, and museums, and stirs in some GPS for an on-the-go guide to kid-friendly amusements. Other such apps could highlight historical buildings and sites, or bike paths, or public gardens, and P-Patches.

In Atlanta, there's "Are You Safe?", which combines municipal crime data with the user's real-time GPS location, to help avoid trouble spots. A similar app tailored to D.C. is "Stumble Safety," which aims to get nightclub and bar patrons home safely by steering them around rough patches in the urban fabric. San Francisco Crime-spotting is another handy app, map-based and Web-browser-friendly. New York held a civic apps contest recently and the winner, announced earlier this month, was Wayfinder. It gives users of Android mobile phones directions to the nearest New York City subway and New Jersey Path train system stations.

It's not all about location guidance in the field, though. Another important type of data set, with which the administration of Mayor Mike McGinn could cement the value of the transparency push, is what I'll call the "disclose and discuss" model. These would be geared not so much to handheld devices, but instead to users of PCs and laptops running standard Web browsers and spreadsheets.

For example, picture easy web access to a data package listing identified repairs needed to city streets and other city infrastructure such as curbs, sidewalks, streetlights, outdoor city stairways (there are 400-plus), and parks facilities. Picture each category listed on a spreadsheet and juxtaposed with the cost, priority level, agency responsible, anticipated completion date of each repair, and funding source. Unfunded repair items would be so noted. Each data set would come with a summary sheet on top. A Google Maps function displaying the same data, with clickable push-pins revealing precise item locales and details, would provide at-a-glance cross-referencing by neighborhood. This kind of disclosure could stimulate valuable discussion about city infrastructure needs versus monetary resources, and how to close the gap.

Then, how about a spreadsheet listing all the Seattle public schools no longer being used as schools, plus the percent of the square footage in each is occupied by tenants; the number of tenants paying any rent; and the property's assessed value? Add in the mapping function again.

This would stimulate dialogue on how ghost school buildings could be better utilized. To house new or expanded programs geared to youth and families? Or should some be sold and the proceeds pumped into capital improvements elsewhere in the district?