[od-discuss] OD v2 accepts Excel as OpenData?!???
Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
b.ooghe at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 10:33:58 UTC 2014
Thanks everyone for your willingness to discuss this matter and
apologies for the late answer.
(I started complaining on my own, this e-mail is rather a cobuilt
answer in the name of regards citoyens)
Rufus, to answer your curiosity on open formats being a key issue in
some advocacy work for Open Data in the last few years, look for
instance at the debates at the EU Parliament on PSI in 2012
<http://blog.okfn.org/2012/12/03/lets-defend-open-formats-for-public-sector-information-in-europe/>.
On a national level, formats and especially Excel have been the key
problem in France since the first opening of data.gouv.fr: we reported
back then that 80% of the files published on the platform were under
Excel <http://www.regardscitoyens.org/opendata-la-moyenne-pour-un-data-gouv-fr-sous-formats-proprietaires/>
(meaning most of the time formatted documents completely unprocessable
automatically). Apart from pushing for the opening of the rare last
paying key datasets, most of our work since then has been to convince
administrations to switch to open formats. Hopefully this context will
shed some light on why we reacted so loudly, if not swiftly.
We believe the first purpose of the Open Definition should be to
define, just like the 10 principles do, clear rules on what can be
considered OpenData, in the ideal hope of getting everybody to follow
these rules, rather than only giving people who nearly completely
opened their data an excuse to stop there with a "good enough" mark.
It seems to us, for instance, that such view of the definition is
similar to the way the census works in trying to push everyone to best
practices, being only a certain percentage of open until then.
Aaron, what we see as a problem with saying that data that "can be
processed" with LibreOffice is open (even in a narrow sense) relies on
the fact that such data may actually not be reusable in any useful,
practical sense, at without heavyweight, manual conversion — think for
instance to a spreadsheet with centered titles, merged cells or
several distinct tables on the same sheet. If one has to resort to
copy-pasting as a first step, ODS documents are barely better than
PDFs… With such wording the definition gets blurry enough to become
open to slippery interpretations, at the risk of letting one think
that the kind of Excel or even ODS documents we still have to deal
with on a daily basis currently would be all right, something we
believe everyone here agrees we want to avoid at all cost.
Indeed, the v1 did not explicitly say that Open Formats are the only
solution, but it was not proposing any other option either, and the
definition made it clear that reusability was expected. One cannot
ignore the impact of the newly introduced "or" clause in that respect.
All of this being said, your combined proposals of updates sound very
good to us and we are definitely in favor of such a consensus
resolution :-)
> * Is the word "Specifically" helping?
It probably isn't necessary but as Aaron said, it doesn't hurt either
> * Data should or must be...?
"must be" sound more appropriate to establish a clear definition
> * Does published specification matter? Does an ad-hoc format that is not restricted by any
> means make a work non-open? Consider CSV variations.
It's true that the RFC csv spec is a bit ad-hoc indeed and doesn't
cover other separators, but it's also true that anyone probably
understands what it means to do a replace_all in a doc ;)
Keeping it shouldn't hurt. If we want to go further, we should
consider following the recommendation of the EU Commission's
interoperability framework v1: the format needs to be "maintained by a
not-for-profit organisation [...with...] an open decision-making
procedure" <http://www.regardscitoyens.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EIF_Commission_Europeenne.pdf>.
> * Should "or, at the very least" be "and"?
definitely :-)
> * 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.
Having the "and" instead of the "or", this clearly comes now in
complement to machine-readable, so the bluryness of the verb process
shouldn't really be an issue anymore.
Herb's proposed rewriting of splitting the sentence in half makes
everything a lot clearer. It is probably the way to go, although we
would be in favor of keeping the "available in bulk" part, by
experience of seeing data restrained through the limits of restricted
apis instead of bulk access.
Thanks again for this constructive effort!
Best,
Benjamin for Regards Citoyens
Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> +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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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