[od-discuss] OD v2 accepts Excel as OpenData?!???
Aaron Wolf
wolftune at riseup.net
Sat Nov 15 00:57:35 UTC 2014
+1 with everything here from Herb. See my very similar reply already.
I suggested that something about "process" area clarify that it's about not have degradation when accessed with free/libre/open software
On 11/14/2014 11:57 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> "* Is the word "Specifically" helping?"
> I don't think so.
>
> "* Data should or must be...?"
> If we want to tighten it up I think a *must* is in order.
> * The **work** *must* be provided in an open, convenient and modifiable
> form such that...
>
> "* Does published specification matter? Does an ad-hoc format that is
> not restricted by any means make a work non-open? Consider CSV variations."
> I would say, no. It doesn't matter and new open formats and
> micro-formats are being invented all the time.
>
> "* Should "or, at the very least" be "and"?"
> Maybe. I think we could actually simplify it a bit more at the same
> time. I would also like to take out the i.e. and make it part of the text.
> * Data must be machine-readable and provided in an open format. An open
> format is one with a freely available published specification which
> places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can be
> processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool.
>
> I removed the "bulk" part of the statement because while I think we can
> tighten up the machine-readable and open format part, I think the "bulk"
> is a *should* or *recommended*. I don't think providing data piecemeal
> necessarily makes it not open as inconvenient as it might be. I think it
> still needs to be mentioned but as a *should* or a *recommended*
> statement in this section.
> * Data *should* be provided in bulk where possible.
>
> "* What does "processed" mean? Possibly something stronger needed. For a
> long time (probably could argue still, though not my experience) OO.o
> (now LO) could "process" OOXML files but not well."
> Not sure what do do about this. "read" doesn't seem any better. "parsed"?
>
> "Should the clause effectively require that no rents must be paid by
> anyone, to anyone (patent holder or software vendor) for any use in
> order for the work to be open, that is comport with " anyone can freely
> access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to
> requirements that preserve provenance and openness)"?"
> I would say yes. There can't be a fee required by anyone to anyone for
> the rights to use the work. It's partially covered in access, but
> that's probably insufficient as it's possible to access some data for
> free but still be required to pay someone. is this an "open format"
> issue though. Could be I suppose.
>
> H
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com
> <mailto:ml at gondwanaland.com>> wrote:
>
> I agree with Aaron's analysis, but catching up on reading this
> thread, I'm convinced the clause in OD 2.0 needs tightening up (and
> reverting to what 1.1 said isn't adequate either).
>
> OD 2.0 says:
> "The work must be provided in a convenient and modifiable form such
> that there are no unnecessary technological obstacles to the
> performance of the licensed rights. Specifically, data should be
> machine-readable, available in bulk, and provided in an open format
> (i.e., a format with a freely available published specification
> which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use)
> or, at the very least, can be processed with at least one
> free/libre/open-source software tool."
>
> * Is the word "Specifically" helping?
> * Data should or must be...?
> * Does published specification matter? Does an ad-hoc format that is
> not restricted by any means make a work non-open? Consider CSV
> variations.
> * Should "or, at the very least" be "and"?
> * What does "processed" mean? Possibly something stronger needed.
> For a long time (probably could argue still, though not my
> experience) OO.o (now LO) could "process" OOXML files but not well.
>
> Should the clause effectively require that no rents must be paid by
> anyone, to anyone (patent holder or software vendor) for any use in
> order for the work to be open, that is comport with " anyone can
> freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at
> most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness)"?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 11/07/2014 10:05 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> > One quick note, ODv1.1 said
> >
> > "The work must be provided in such a form that there are no
> > technological obstacles to the performance of the above
> > activities. This can be achieved by the provision of the work in
> > an open data format, i.e. one whose specification is publicly and
> > freely available and which places no restrictions monetary or
> > otherwise upon its use."
> >
> > Which does not specify that open formats are required. It merely
> > says that the format must not impede the freedoms and that an open
> > format is a suggested way to do this. The "can be achieved" line
> > is open to interpretation. The ODv2 makes things more explicit but
> > does not actually completely change the meaning. It's true that
> > "can be processed" in ODv2 is open to interpretation, and a strong
> > interpretation would be that such processing must have no
> > degradation or issues whereas a weaker interpretation would be
> > problematic.
> >
> > FWIW, here's the blame on Herb for the new clause:
> > https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/e1c19b075a57d36a6331416e8afce2f34c0a69e3
> >
> > Again, I'm open to being convinced that the best advocacy is
> > served by insisting on open formats, I just want an honest debate
> > that doesn't blow this out of proportion.
> >
> > Those of you suggesting that this was a complete shift are not
> > recognizing the lack of strength and clarity from ODv1.1 on this
> > issue.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Aaron
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Wolf
> > wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com/>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com
> > <mailto:wolftune at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not certain that that clause accepting data in non-open
> > formats is *good*. I think this is a matter of practical
> > concern and political strategy. I do not want to defend the
> > use of Excel.
> >
> > I could be persuaded that the right political strategy is to
> > retain the strict definition that only open formats are
> > acceptable.
> >
> > However, "the Open Definition just becomes trash for any
> > advocacy work to us now...." is complete hyberbole. You might
> > as well say, "the only advocacy work we ever do or care about
> > is regarding file formats."
> >
> > If you want to have a useful discussion about this, you'll
> > need to accept the facts about the scope of this issue and not
> > be completely irrational about it.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Aaron
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Wolf
> > wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com/>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
> > <b.ooghe at gmail.com <mailto:b.ooghe at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Aaron,
> >
> > Just a brief reaction before taking more time to answer in
> > the coming
> > days: the thing is this is a total game changer. Until
> > now, according
> > to both OD v1 and the 8/10 principles, you could only say
> > something
> > was OpenData if and only if it was under an open format.
> > So this is a
> > complzete step back. Reread my first e-mail and the title
> > : I totally
> > understood this doesn't say Excel is an open format, but
> > it says
> > opendata can be under excel which so many of us have been
> > exxplaining
> > the contray to officials, governments and so on. Clearly
> > saying now
> > that OpenDefinition does not require open formats is just what
> > Microsoft has been advocating for in the past 2 years....
> >
> > And the reason is simple: being able to open a file in
> > LibreOffice
> > doesn't make it reusable, most of the time data under
> > excel is filled
> > with presentation issues making the treatment impossible.
> >
> > As expressed before, in the current situation, the Open
> > Definition
> > just becomes trash for any advocacy work to us now....
> >
> > Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Aaron Wolf
> > <wolftune at gmail.com <mailto:wolftune at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > Pierre,
> > >
> > > You can still say that Excel format is not an open
> > format and is not ideal.
> > > And you can say that the Excel software itself is not
> > Free/Libre/Open. All
> > > these things are unchanged.
> > >
> > > The only thing you cannot say under ODv2 is "this is not
> > open data because
> > > you're publishing it in a closed format". And you know
> > what? If the data is
> > > actually totally usable in LibreOffice, then we're
> > pretty much ok in terms
> > > of access and freedoms with the data.
> > >
> > > "an open format (i.e., a format with a freely available
> > published
> > > specification which places no restrictions, monetary or
> > otherwise, upon its
> > > use) or, at the very least, can be processed with at
> > least one
> > > free/libre/open-source software tool."
> > >
> > > Says very clearly that the latter clause is only "at the
> > very least" and is
> > > not an "open format". So it does *not* say that Excel is
> > fine and
> > > comparable. It just says that being in Excel format is
> > not a sufficient
> > > problem to break the Open definition.
> > >
> > > I said this earlier: insisting otherwise would be like
> > saying that something
> > > isn't free software just because it runs on a
> > proprietary OS. Sorry, but
> > > LibreOffice on Windows is still free software and open
> > data in Excel format
> > > openable with LibreOffice is still open data. Windows is
> > still awful and
> > > proprietary and so is Excel format.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron Wolf
> > > wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Pierre Chrzanowski
> > > <pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com
> > <mailto:pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> A problem I see with this added rule is that it opens
> > the Open Definition
> > >> to interpretation on format, making it less clear, as
> > exemplified by this
> > >> discussion, and at the end, less powerful in regard to
> > its objective and
> > >> usefulness.
> > >>
> > >> Before, I could use the Open Definition as, let's say
> > an authority
> > >> argument, alongside my explanation on why it is
> > important to use open format
> > >> - and it is ! - or use it to support people criticizing
> > the use of excel
> > >> format - on data.gov.uk <http://data.gov.uk> for
> > instance [1].
> > >>
> > >> But now I can't.
> > >> This is a major regression to me.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2014/09/microsoft-gets-flack-over-rubb-8.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 8:35:44 PM Aaron Wolf
> > <wolftune at gmail.com <mailto:wolftune at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Indeed, to summarize my points as clearly as possible:
> > >>>
> > >>> OD v2 does NOT *endorse* Excel format. Period.
> > >>>
> > >>> OD v2 *does* say that Excel format *if* shown to be
> > *perfectly* usable in
> > >>> LibreOffice is not so objectionable that the whole
> > data set is no longer
> > >>> considered to be "Open".
> > >>>
> > >>> There is *nothing* about OD v2 that says that the
> > Excel format is Open.
> > >>> We do NOT consider Excel to be an Open format! We
> > remain *perfectly* free to
> > >>> criticize people for using this clearly non-Open format.
> > >>>
> > >>> I disagree with those suggesting that *data* which
> > meets all the OD v2
> > >>> details and is *fully* usable in LibreOffice is
> > somehow not Open data just
> > >>> because it is published in a non-Open format.
> > >>>
> > >>> That suggestion is comparable to saying that some
> > software is not
> > >>> Free/Libre/Open software because it runs on Microsoft
> > Windows. Nothing about
> > >>> acknowledging the FLO nature of some Windows software
> > implies that Windows
> > >>> is FLO. Nothing about that acknowledgement implies
> > that we endorse software
> > >>> being Windows-only. There remains no good reason (and
> > a lot of reasons
> > >>> against) denying FLO status to otherwise FLO software
> > that runs on Windows.
> > >>>
> > >>> State one more time: ODv2 does NOT say that Excel is
> > an Open format. It
> > >>> says only that *data* being in Excel format is not
> > sufficient for the *data*
> > >>> to lose status as being Open Data.
> > >>>
> > >>> I personally agree completely that we *want* all
> > software to run on
> > >>> GNU/Linux (in fact, I would like all Windows software
> > to die), and that we
> > >>> want all data in Open formats. But if your software
> > runs on Windows or your
> > >>> data is in Excel, I still *prefer* that the software
> > be FLO and the data be
> > >>> Open, and that is feasible.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the critiques against ODv2 in this case are
> > based on the
> > >>> *erroneous* inference that ODv2 is saying that
> > anything openable in
> > >>> LibreOffice is itself an Open format. It does not say
> > that. It just says
> > >>> that being in a proprietary format that is readily
> > freeable doesn't itself
> > >>> make the *data* non-Open.
> > >>>
> > >>> Respectfully,
> > >>> Aaron
> > >>>
> > >>> P.S. Maybe someone can take what turned out to be
> > not-so-concise and
> > >>> highlight just the key bits of what I wrote above…
> > sorry… :P
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Aaron Wolf
> > >>> wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Rufus Pollock
> > <rufus.pollock at okfn.org <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 31 October 2014 14:42, Brice Person
> > <brice at ideeslibres.org <mailto:brice at ideeslibres.org>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think a lot of Open Data activists around the
> > world have been basing
> > >>>>> their advocacy onto these *very* important rules
> > from the V1 (my case).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd be interested to hear more here. Has a major
> > piece of advocacy
> > >>>> around open data with specific governments been excel
> > vs csv (or is it about
> > >>>> csv vs pdf)?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To be clear, I'm strongly in favour of open formats
> > but as Aaron and
> > >>>> others have explained there is also a question of
> > what we want the
> > >>>> definition and conception of open to be, in
> > particular if our aim is to
> > >>>> ensure that everyone has freedom to use, reuse and
> > redistribute, that seems
> > >>>> reasonably well provided for.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Besides, maybe some of them did not notice this
> > important issue while
> > >>>>> only being discussed on this list. Would it be
> > possible to consult more
> > >>>>> widely the opinion of the community on this ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Understood and we are discussing now :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rufus
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If I could vote, I would agree to replace the "or"
> > by an "and".
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Brice Person
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Le 27/10/2014 21:56, Tangui Morlier a écrit :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The "Or" proposition is indeed really problematic.
> > Considering this
> > >>>>>> part, as DRMs are accessible via reverse
> > engineering through some
> > >>>>>> free/libre softwares, they are considered ok with
> > the Open
> > >>>>>> Definition...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Just relying on the courageous developers who took
> > strong legal risks
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>> make those closed formats accessible within some
> > free softwares should
> > >>>>>> not be a sufficient argument to consider anything
> > open : as a
> > >>>>>> reminder,
> > >>>>>> Microsoft sued developpers to have released the
> > pieces of code to read
> > >>>>>> Excel files
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > (<http://www.computerworld.com/article/2545166/open-source-tools/microsoft--desperate---says-patent-complaint-target-openoffice-org.html>)
> > >>>>>> or access Samba shared resources
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > (<http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-antitrust-offering-blocks-samba-3039202482/>).
> > >>>>>> And it's not the only proprietary software company
> > to do so.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As nearly every proprietary format has been
> > reversed engineered by the
> > >>>>>> free software communities, keeping this clause has
> > the consequence of
> > >>>>>> including anything, whatever the format, as
> > compatible with the open
> > >>>>>> definition (when it respects the other conditions
> > of the OD course).
> > >>>>>> This consequences sound totally crazy to us all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We strongly advocate to change this problematic
> > sentence. An easy fix
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>> solve the bug, if not removing the whole or and
> > after part, could be
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>> simply replace the "or" with an "and".
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Tangui for Regards Citoyens
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Le 07/10/2014 18:42, Rufus Pollock a écrit :
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 7 October 2014 15:14, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
> > <b.ooghe at gmail.com <mailto:b.ooghe at gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> <mailto:b.ooghe at gmail.com
> > <mailto:b.ooghe at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hello there,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I feel guilty for not having taken the time
> > earlier to
> > >>>>>>> participate in
> > >>>>>>> the drafting process but I was assuming the
> > principles of the
> > >>>>>>> old v1
> > >>>>>>> and the 10 principles would always keep in
> > line. Although, I
> > >>>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>> it could have been nice before releasing
> > anything to send the
> > >>>>>>> final
> > >>>>>>> draft to the various okfn mailing-lists.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Although, just reading the first part of the
> > v2, I'm really
> > >>>>>>> alarmed by
> > >>>>>>> point 1.3 on the formats. The sentence ends
> > with: open format OR
> > >>>>>>> "at
> > >>>>>>> the very least, can be processed with at
> > least one
> > >>>>>>> free/libre/open-source software tool"
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So basically, since you can open it within
> > LibreOffice, data in
> > >>>>>>> excel
> > >>>>>>> formats will be considered as Open according
> > to the
> > >>>>>>> OpenDefinition v2!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Assuming that it is also: machine-readable, bulk
> > and openly licensed,
> > >>>>>>> then yes I think that is the current reading.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This is a real step backwards which sounds
> > really in total
> > >>>>>>> disagreement with everything that we all
> > stand for and have been
> > >>>>>>> fighting for in the past few years, whether
> > during the re-PSI
> > >>>>>>> debates
> > >>>>>>> at the EU Parliament or in our respective
> > countries.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> First off, let me say that I'm, personally, a very
> > strong supporter
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>> open formats.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The question here is:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - What should the Open Definition be setting as
> > the standard - e.g.
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>> people can access data with free/open/libre tools
> > and the data is
> > >>>>>>> machine-readable, bulk and openly licensed is that
> > enough (for
> > >>>>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>> that would mean that anyone could immediately turn
> > that data in a
> > >>>>>>> proprietary form into an open form)
> > >>>>>>> - Is the push for open (document) standards
> > related to but separate
> > >>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> the open definition?
> > >>>>>>> - Is the definition of the open format really that
> > clear (and does it
> > >>>>>>> really get enforced - e.g. there's a lot of
> > "excel" open data out
> > >>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>> from gov). Will it require us to provide a list of
> > approved open
> > >>>>>>> formats? (If so can we do that?)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I should say my inclination now that this is
> > highlighted - and I
> > >>>>>>> confess
> > >>>>>>> I somewhat passed over this during review - is
> > that we should remove
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> "or" option but I'm trying to highlight reasons to
> > think carefully.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In such condition, I personnally (and I guess
> > Regards Citoyens
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>> well) won't be able to use the OD as a
> > reference anymore or only
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> v1, and probably get back to the good old 10
> > principles.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I must say I really do not understand how
> > such a piece of
> > >>>>>>> sentence
> > >>>>>>> could have appear there, it really looks a
> > lot alike Microsoft's
> > >>>>>>> amendments when the EU Parliament was
> > defining machine readable
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> reusable. I can only imagine this was a way
> > to include all those
> > >>>>>>> official datasets published on national
> > catalogs in Excel, but
> > >>>>>>> if such
> > >>>>>>> I believe we really do not want these to be
> > considered as
> > >>>>>>> OpenData.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> That's good to make clear.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> They are to the contrary our best advocacy
> > examples to point to
> > >>>>>>> governments and make them understand why they
> > have to switch
> > >>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> formatted spreadsheet to actual data as csv.
> > Including them in
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> standards won't help anyone!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think the point had been to try to capture the
> > spirit was that
> > >>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>> should have freedom to access and the existence of
> > a free/libre/open
> > >>>>>>> tool should allow that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I can only hope this can still be changed and
> > will be towards a
> > >>>>>>> v2.0.1. Hope I'm not the only one!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks for raising this important point and let's
> > discuss this and
> > >>>>>>> revise if appropriate and agreed :-)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Rufus
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Benjamin
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Rufus Pollock
> > >>>>>>> <rufus.pollock at okfn.org
> > <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
> > <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org
> > <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> > Hi All,
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > The v2.0 announce has gone live as planned.
> > Announce text is
> > >>>>>>> below
> > >>>>>>> if people
> > >>>>>>> > want to forward and can also be found in
> > "source" form near
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> top of the
> > >>>>>>> > announce doc.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > In terms of online post, we have:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > [Herb/Rufus/Susanne] PR + Open Knowledge Blog
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > [Tim] Creative Commons Blog
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > [Herb] Government of Canada Blog
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > [Andrew] World Bank Blog
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Let me know when you've posted and we can
> > tweet etc.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > In terms of mailing lists we have a list at
> > the top of the
> > >>>>>>> announce doc. I'm
> > >>>>>>> > crossing off the ones I've done so far.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Huge well done to everyone and bigs thanks,
> > especially to Mike
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> Herb who
> > >>>>>>> > have been the Chairs during this process
> > and who have done an
> > >>>>>>> immense amount
> > >>>>>>> > to get us to this point.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Regards,
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Rufus
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Online at:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > http://blog.okfn.org/2014/10/07/open-definition-v2-0-released-major-update-of-essential-standard-for-open-data-and-open-content/
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > ANN: Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major
> > Update of Essential
> > >>>>>>> Standard for
> > >>>>>>> > Open Data and Open Content
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Today Open Knowledge and the Open
> > Definition Advisory Council
> > >>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>> pleased to
> > >>>>>>> > announce the release of version 2.0 of the
> > Open Definition.
> > >>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>> Definition
> > >>>>>>> > “sets out principles that define openness
> > in relation to data
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> content”
> > >>>>>>> > and plays a key role in supporting the
> > growing open data
> > >>>>>>> ecosystem.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Recent years have seen an explosion in the
> > release of open
> > >>>>>>> data by
> > >>>>>>> dozens of
> > >>>>>>> > governments including the G8. Recent
> > estimates by McKinsey put
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> potential
> > >>>>>>> > benefits of open data at over $1 trillion
> > and others estimates
> > >>>>>>> put
> > >>>>>>> benefits
> > >>>>>>> > at more than 1% of global GDP.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > However, these benefits are at significant
> > risk both from
> > >>>>>>> quality
> > >>>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>> > such as “open-washing” (non-open data being
> > passed off as
> > >>>>>>> open)
> > >>>>>>> and from
> > >>>>>>> > fragmentation of the open data ecosystem due to
> > >>>>>>> incompatibility
> > >>>>>>> between the
> > >>>>>>> > growing number of “open” licenses.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > The Open Definition eliminates these risks
> > and ensures we
> > >>>>>>> realize
> > >>>>>>> the full
> > >>>>>>> > benefits of open by guaranteeing quality
> > and preventing
> > >>>>>>> incompatibility.
> > >>>>>>> > See this recent post for more about why the
> > Open Definition is
> > >>>>>>> so
> > >>>>>>> important.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Created in 2005, this new version of the
> > Open Definition is
> > >>>>>>> the most
> > >>>>>>> > significant revision in the Definition’s
> > nearly ten-year
> > >>>>>>> history and
> > >>>>>>> > reflects more than a year of discussion and
> > consultation with
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>> > including input from experts involved in
> > open data, open
> > >>>>>>> access, open
> > >>>>>>> > culture, open education, open government,
> > and open source. As
> > >>>>>>> well as major
> > >>>>>>> > revisions to the text there is a new
> > process for reviewing
> > >>>>>>> licenses which
> > >>>>>>> > has been trialled with major governments
> > including the UK.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > The Open Definition was published in 2005
> > by Open Knowledge
> > >>>>>>> and is
> > >>>>>>> > maintained today by an expert Advisory
> > Council. This new
> > >>>>>>> version
> > >>>>>>> of the Open
> > >>>>>>> > Definition is the most significant revision
> > in the
> > >>>>>>> Definition’s nearly
> > >>>>>>> > ten-year history.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > It reflects more than a year of discussion
> > and consultation
> > >>>>>>> with the
> > >>>>>>> > community including input from experts
> > involved in open data,
> > >>>>>>> open
> > >>>>>>> access,
> > >>>>>>> > open culture, open education, open
> > government, and open
> > >>>>>>> source.
> > >>>>>>> Whilst there
> > >>>>>>> > are no changes to the core principles, the
> > Definition has been
> > >>>>>>> completely
> > >>>>>>> > reworked with a new structure and revised
> > text as well as a
> > >>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>> process for
> > >>>>>>> > reviewing licenses (which has been trialled
> > with governments
> > >>>>>>> including the
> > >>>>>>> > UK).
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Herb Lainchbury, Chair of the Open
> > Definition Advisory
> > >>>>>>> Council, said:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > ‘The Open Definition describes the
> > principles that define
> > >>>>>>> “openness” in
> > >>>>>>> > relation to data and content, and is used
> > to assess whether a
> > >>>>>>> particular
> > >>>>>>> > licence meets that standard. A key goal of
> > this new version
> > >>>>>>> is to
> > >>>>>>> make it
> > >>>>>>> > easier to assess whether the growing number
> > of open licenses
> > >>>>>>> actually make
> > >>>>>>> > the grade. The more we can increase
> > everyone’s confidence in
> > >>>>>>> their
> > >>>>>>> use of
> > >>>>>>> > open works, the more they will be able to
> > focus on creating
> > >>>>>>> value
> > >>>>>>> with open
> > >>>>>>> > works.’
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Rufus Pollock, President and Founder of
> > Open Knowledge said:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > ‘Since we created the Open Definition in
> > 2005 it has played a
> > >>>>>>> key
> > >>>>>>> role in
> > >>>>>>> > the growing open data and open content
> > communities. It acts as
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> ‘gold
> > >>>>>>> > standard’ for open data and content
> > guaranteeing quality and
> > >>>>>>> preventing
> > >>>>>>> > incompatibility. As a standard, the Open
> > Definition plays a
> > >>>>>>> key
> > >>>>>>> role in
> > >>>>>>> > underpinning the ‘open knowledge economy’
> > with a potential
> > >>>>>>> value
> > >>>>>>> that runs
> > >>>>>>> > into the hundreds of billions - or even
> > trillions -
> > >>>>>>> worldwide.’
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > What’s New
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > In process for more than a year, the new
> > version was
> > >>>>>>> collaboratively and
> > >>>>>>> > openly developed with input from experts
> > involved in open
> > >>>>>>> access, open
> > >>>>>>> > culture, open data, open education, open
> > government, open
> > >>>>>>> source
> > >>>>>>> and wiki
> > >>>>>>> > communities. The new version of the definition:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Has a complete rewrite of the core
> > principles - preserving
> > >>>>>>> their
> > >>>>>>> meaning but
> > >>>>>>> > using simpler language and clarifying key
> > aspects.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Introduces a clear separation of the
> > definition of an open
> > >>>>>>> license
> > >>>>>>> from an
> > >>>>>>> > open work (with the latter depending on the
> > former). This not
> > >>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>> > simplifies the conceptual structure but
> > provides a proper
> > >>>>>>> definition of open
> > >>>>>>> > license and makes it easier to
> > “self-assess” licenses for
> > >>>>>>> conformance with
> > >>>>>>> > the Open Definition.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > The definition of an Open Work within the
> > Open Definition is
> > >>>>>>> now a
> > >>>>>>> set of
> > >>>>>>> > three key principles:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Open License: The work must be available
> > under an open license
> > >>>>>>> (as
> > >>>>>>> defined
> > >>>>>>> > in the following section but this includes
> > freedom to use,
> > >>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>> on, modify
> > >>>>>>> > and share).
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Access: The work shall be available as a
> > whole and at no more
> > >>>>>>> than a
> > >>>>>>> > reasonable one-time reproduction cost,
> > preferably downloadable
> > >>>>>>> via the
> > >>>>>>> > Internet without charge
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Open Format: The work must be provided in a
> > convenient and
> > >>>>>>> modifiable form
> > >>>>>>> > such that there are no unnecessary
> > technological obstacles to
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> > performance of the licensed rights.
> > Specifically, data should
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>> > machine-readable, available in bulk, and
> > provided in an open
> > >>>>>>> format or, at
> > >>>>>>> > the very least, can be processed with at
> > least one
> > >>>>>>> free/libre/open-source
> > >>>>>>> > software tool.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Includes improved license approval process
> > to make it easier
> > >>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> license
> > >>>>>>> > creators to check conformance of their
> > license with the Open
> > >>>>>>> Definition and
> > >>>>>>> > to encourage reuse of existing open
> > licenses (rrareuse and
> > >>>>>>> outlines the
> > >>>>>>> > process for submitting a license so that it
> > can be checked for
> > >>>>>>> conformance
> > >>>>>>> > against the Open Definition.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > More Information
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > For more information about the Open
> > Definition including the
> > >>>>>>> updated version
> > >>>>>>> > visit: http://opendefinition.org/
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > For background on why the Open Definition
> > matters, read the
> > >>>>>>> recent article
> > >>>>>>> > ‘Why the Open Definition Matters’
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> > od-discuss mailing list
> > >>>>>>> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
> > >>>>>>> >
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > >>>>>>> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
> > >>>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > >>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> *
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> **
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ****
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> **Rufus Pollock**
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> **Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock |
> > @rufuspollock
> > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>**
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> **Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>- s**ee how
> > data can change the
> > >>>>>>> world
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ****http://okfn.org/| <http://okfn.org/%7C> @okfn
> > <http://twitter.com/OKFN>| Open Knowledge
> > >>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>| Blog
> > >>>>>>> <http://blog.okfn.org/>***
> > >>>>>>> _
> > >>>>>>> _
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit
> > organisation. It
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> incorporated in England & Wales as a company
> > limited by guarantee,
> > >>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>> company number 05133759. VAT Registration № GB
> > 984404989. Registered
> > >>>>>>> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St
> > John’s Innovation
> > >>>>>>> Centre,
> > >>>>>>> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
> > >>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > >>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > >>>>>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> @bjperson
> > >>>>> http://www.IdeesLibres.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rufus Pollock
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock |
> > @rufuspollock
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Open Knowledge - see how data can change the world
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | Open Knowledge on Facebook
> > | Blog
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit
> > organisation. It is
> > >>>> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited
> > by guarantee, with
> > >>>> company number 05133759. VAT Registration № GB
> > 984404989. Registered office
> > >>>> address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s
> > Innovation Centre, Cowley
> > >>>> Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> od-discuss mailing list
> > >>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > >>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > >>>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> od-discuss mailing list
> > >>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > od-discuss mailing list
> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list