[od-discuss] OD v2 accepts Excel as OpenData?!???

Tue Oct 7 16:42:25 UTC 2014

On 7 October 2014 15:14, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <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>
> 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
> > 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
>

-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> | @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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141007/cf02d23e/attachment-0003.html>