[epsi-coord] Response of EC to standardization topic report. Fwd: Topic report on open data and standardization

Thu Jan 17 10:22:21 GMT 2013

Hans, Tom,

is there a final version now of this TR? One that I can publish?

best,
Ton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

http://zylstra.org/blog

*Share your real life open data experiences,*
*observations and anecdotes:*
http://epsiplatform.eu/content/share-your-story
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Ton Zijlstra <ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>wrote:

> hi Tom, Hans,
>
> See below the feedback of the Commission on the TR on standardization.
>
> Can you guys prepare a revised version? Thanks!
>
> best,
> Ton
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Interdependent Thoughts
> Ton Zijlstra
>
> ton at tonzijlstra.eu
> +31-6-34489360
>
> http://zylstra.org/blog
>
> *Share your real life open data experiences,*
> *observations and anecdotes:*
> http://epsiplatform.eu/content/share-your-story
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <Katalin.IMREI at ec.europa.eu>
> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM
> Subject: RE: Topic report on open data and standardization
> To: ton.zijlstra at gmail.com
> Cc: Szymon.LEWANDOWSKI at ec.europa.eu
>
>
>  Dear Ton,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for this draft topic report on open data and standardisation.***
> *
>
> We have carefully read through your document and also asked our colleague
> who is an expert in standardisation issues to make comments.****
>
> ** **
>
> Please find our comments below my current message.****
>
> We are looking forward to receiving the revised version of the report once
> our comments are integrated in it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you again.****
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Katalin****
>
> ** **
>
> A general comment: the interesting question of whether to pursue the
> strategy of opening up as much raw data as possible (regardless of
> standards) or of publishing only standardised data does not seem to be
> sufficiently elaborated on in the document. Maybe some further efforts
> could be made to address this question in more details. ****
>
> ** **
>
> As regards the technical aspects touched upon in the report, there seem to
> be some elements that might be worth having a second look at: ****
>
> ** **
>
> Page 4:****
>
> *On the other hand, increasing emphasis is being put by the open data
> community on the importance of linked data. An essential element of such
> linked data is that they are standardised, preferably according to open
> standards. However, public bodies often create datasets solely with the
> view of meeting their own specific needs, without considering the possible
> use of the data for others (as do private companies), and they are often
> dependent on proprietary software that is in many cases even specifically
> created for them by software and management system vendors. Hence, making
> available government data in a standardised form takes time, effort and
> money, and, as a consequence, conflicts with providing ‘raw data now’. *
>
> Here, it might be worth referring to the RDF standard for data
> representation that the concept of Linked Data is based on (and which can
> indeed be considered as an open standard).****
>
> When referring to the proprietary software, it could be made clearer how
> this impacts on the data and interoperability, i.e. by the fact that
> proprietary software often implies the usage of proprietary data formats
> that make interoperability difficult.****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 3.5: The Semantic Web****
>
> Here, it might be worth mentioning that the Semantic Web standards are
> also the basis for the Linked (Open) Data approach. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Page 9:****
>
> *Some file standards are closely tied to the type of data that is being
> published. To a data owner, it will be immediately clear whether or not
> these standards are suitable to be used in or for a specific dataset.
> Examples include Google’s KML format for geocodes, .MP3 and other audio
> files for sound data, etc. Even though the difference with the ‘regular’
> file formats is somewhat academic, the main distinguishing factor with
> these file types is the presence of a ‘context’. E.g. music data might be
> expressed (even though not easily played) as a spreadsheet, but a
> spreadsheet will not be stored as an MP3-file.*
>
> Here, it seems to me as though two distinct issues were mixed up: while
> KML is a data markup language (i.e. a metadata standard like Dublin Core
> mentioned in the next paragraph), Mp3 is a data compression standard.****
>
> ** **
>
> Page 9:****
>
> *Other standards relate to the representation of the attributes and
> characteristics of the data. For instance, the Dublin Core standards are
> part of the Resource Description Framework of XML[1]<#13b4870a298a7d00_13b478e0afc794bc__ftn1>.
> *
>
> Dublin Core is not part of RDF but it is a metadata standard that can be
> represented in RDF or XML.****
>
> ** **
>
> Page 9:****
>
> *The file format for linked data files is usually RDF (for Resource
> Description Framework), which in itself is a file-format standard. RDF[2]<#13b4870a298a7d00_13b478e0afc794bc__ftn2>allows the publisher to link to the semantic web, thus supplying a context
> for the data. *
>
> Rather than being a file format, RDF is a data representation standard
> which can be serialised in different file formats.****
>
> ** **
>
> Page 9:****
>
> *This is due to the fact that the RDF contains links (uniform resource
> identifiers or URI’s) to entities or relations that are stored within
> ontology-databases such as DBPedia.
> <http://opendatastandards.org/?t=faqs&faq=what-is-a-standard>*
>
> From the position of the brackets, it sounds as if URIs were links.
> Instead, anything that can be identified with a Uniform Resource Identifier
> can be referred to by RDF. Objects stored in databases like DBpedia are
> just one such example.****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 5.1****
>
> *However, provided that the data is sufficiently valuable, we have also
> seen that a number of companies and civic groups have started to reformat
> the data and building datastreams that are of higher quality.*
>
> The notion of datastreams (which implies a continuous transmission of data
> might not be the right term in this section. Instead, data in general might
> rather be implied here.****
>
> ** **
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1]<https://mail.google.com/_/mail-static/_/js/main/m_i,t/rt=h/ver=zTjBkdZKIgg.en./sv=1/am=!FdCGt3q8VOT1BO3aNKsLUpaWdTV4WvDFmnbzfXDkXyh-no3uCZJLgKi85jH1_kqJE-Yj/d=1#13b478e0afc794bc__ftnref1>
>  http://dublincore.org/.****
>
> [2]<https://mail.google.com/_/mail-static/_/js/main/m_i,t/rt=h/ver=zTjBkdZKIgg.en./sv=1/am=!FdCGt3q8VOT1BO3aNKsLUpaWdTV4WvDFmnbzfXDkXyh-no3uCZJLgKi85jH1_kqJE-Yj/d=1#13b478e0afc794bc__ftnref2>
>  http://www.w3.org/RDF/****
>
> ** **
>
> *Katalin IMREI*
>
> Policy Officer****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:895344008 at 04052012-11FB]****
>
> *European Commission*
>
> DG CONNECT****
>
> Unit G3 – Data Value Chain****
>
> *        EUFO 1/178, L-2557 Luxembourg/Gasperich****
>
> (        +352-430-135-133****
>
> Ê        +352-430-130-269****
>
> 8         katalin.imrei at ec.europa.eu****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/epsi-coord/attachments/20130117/66f5dee5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/epsi-coord/attachments/20130117/66f5dee5/attachment-0001.gif>