[euopendata] Terminology: PSI-data vs Open Data

Wed Jan 12 15:54:15 UTC 2011

These are really valid points! Just to add another dimension to the problem:
- in some jurisdictions there is also a mix-up between documents,
information and data that causes a lot of confusion. We should also do some
work on that front as well

all the best
pRo

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Daniel Dietrich
<daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>wrote:

> Another big +1 for what Antti and Jonathan have outlined
>
> I agree that the more open data becomes a "hype" the more important it is
> to get the terms right. And for our community this means to define and
> defend the "open" in open data. Also we should make it very clear what it
> takes for PSI to actually become open government data.
>
> Peter mentioned that there is no universally accepted formal definition of
> "open data"
>
> So my question for all of you:
> Shall we take effort and try to create a dedicated open government data
> definition at http://www.opendefinition.org/government/ ?
>
> I will send a link to this thread to the open government data list but lets
> the thread discussion here.
>
> Kind regards
> Daniel
>
> On 12.01.2011, at 12:50, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
> > +1 Antti. ;-)
> >
> > The idea of a clear, explicit definition of 'open data' is partly why
> > we started: http://www.opendefinition.org/
> >
> > We're currently working on building consensus about this in relation
> > to 'open government data', by talking to a range of high level
> > stakeholders to encourage the emergence of some consensus between key,
> > leading initiatives in this area.
> >
> > PSI is not to be conflated with 'open government data' but is a much
> > broader term with a longer history. PSI policy *may* include
> > discussion of 'open government data', but by no means is all PSI open,
> > or meant to be open. 'Open government data' is a subset of 'PSI' like
> > 'open source software' is a subset of 'software'. It is nevertheless a
> > useful blanket term for talking about information produced by public
> > bodies. I understand it is (as Antti comments) in some ways quite a
> > EU-centric term, but has traction and is widely recognised
> > internationally, e.g. used by the OECD for a meeting on this area in
> > 2006 [1].
> >
> > In my mind the terminological distinction is important so that we do
> > not start to create the impression that 'open data' is just government
> > material (PSI) that is freely available online. Crucially open data
> > must be usable by anyone with a minimum of restriction (at most
> > attribution, and, possibly, integrity or sharealike requirements).
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,2340,en_2649_33757_36860241_1_1_1_1,00.html
> >
> > 2011/1/12 Antti Poikola <antti.poikola at gmail.com>:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> Congrats for the new born!
> >>
> >> The question of Open Data vs. PSI is very relevant.
> >>
> >> In Berlin last year we drafted this picture:
> >> http://picasaweb.google.com/antti.poikola/Open_Data#5561247540812199682
> >>
> >> Instead of PSI in the picture there is Government Data. PSI as a term
> >> relates to the PSI directive (EU) and in my understanding in not so much
> >> used outside of Europe (correct me if I'm wrong).
> >>
> >> Idea in the picture is that there exists:
> >> A: Government Data (including also sensitive data and data that fall
> under
> >> the data protection laws etc.)
> >> - Some part of the Gov. Data is allready Open -> Open Government Data
> >> - Some part of the Gov. Data is not Open even if it could (not sensitive
> >> data, for example data that can be accessed according to the Freedom of
> >> Information laws) -> Public Government Data
> >> - Some part of the Gov. Data can never be Open.
> >> B: Open Data (that includes Open Government Data and also open data
> outside
> >> of the Gov, for example wikipedia)
> >>
> >> It's very true that many PSI related discussions are not discussions
> about
> >> open data ( I understand by open data something along the lines of Open
> >> Knowledge Definition OKD ). On the contrary what comes to the pricing
> for
> >> example, many 'traditional' re-users say that data should not allways be
> >> free of charge, it's more important to be able to buy data with
> reasonable
> >> price and get some sort of contract with the data provider.
> >>
> >> The basic benefit categories of Open Government Data in my mind are:
> >> 1. Transparency and democracy
> >> 2. Innovation and economy
> >> 3. Efficiency of the government
> >>
> >> The PSI directive mostly focuses on number 2. which may well be achieved
> >> even if the data is not "Open" as long as there are easy ways to find
> data
> >> and pricing is not too high etc. In Finland there is ongoing legislation
> >> work to make data more usable "first between the governmental bodies
> (nr.
> >> 3.)" and later on "for businesses (nr 2.)" the discussion of Open Data
> >> related to Transparency and Democracy is not very strong (maybe because
> >> transparency is not considered to be a problem in Finland).
> >>
> >> Personally I allways speak for the Open Government Data, because I
> believe
> >> that in the long run that is the way to acchieve all benefits 1,2, and
> 3. Of
> >> course the Government Data can be made easier to re-use even if it for
> some
> >> reason is not be made Open. Increasing accessibility, making the re-use
> >> licensing clear, reducing prices, transforming it to better formats,
> >> providing it trough robust interfaces, increasing the data quality etc.
> >>
> >> What I am worried about is that the term "Open" is misunderstood and
> >> dilluted. People think that when they are building good APIs they would
> be
> >> "opening the data" even if the licencing and pricing models are not in
> line
> >> with the definition of Open Data.
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong in building the Gov. APIs and doing all other
> >> possible enhancements for increasing the re-usability of PSI, but when
> there
> >> is no intension of making the Data Open then the word "Open" should not
> be
> >> used.
> >>
> >> -Antti "Jogi" Poikola
> >>
> >> On 12.1.2011 10:32, Peter Krantz wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I am back at work from parental leave and started digging into
> >> Sweden's approach to open data. Initial findings suggest that there
> >> are many who confuse the terms "open data" and "PSI". It mainly boils
> >> down to the concept of "free".
> >>
> >> The PSI directive does not require data to be free of charge (it has
> >> provisions to deal with transparent pricing though). Although there is
> >> not a universally accepted formal definition of "Open data" most
> >> people who are working in this area consider a price of 0 to be a
> >> requirement.
> >>
> >> How can we make sure more people understand these differences? The
> >> term "PSI" is getting a lot of traction within the government sector
> >> and it is easy for people to believe that thay are dealing with "open
> >> data" when, in fact, they may be far from it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Peter Krantz
> >> http://www.opengov.se
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> euopendata mailing list
> >> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> Q: Why is this email three sentences or less?
> >> A: http://three.sentenc.es
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> euopendata mailing list
> >> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Gray
> >
> > Community Coordinator
> > The Open Knowledge Foundation
> > http://blog.okfn.org
> >
> > http://twitter.com/jwyg
> > http://identi.ca/jwyg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > euopendata mailing list
> > euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> euopendata mailing list
> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/attachments/20110112/4e96a953/attachment-0001.html>