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

Tue Oct 7 16:59:51 UTC 2014

Sorry for the double-mail, client error.

I do have extra thoughts to share:

We need to consider cases like this: is a public-domain music recording
that is distributed as an mp3 non-Open? Or a video that is CC-BY-SA but is
in mp4 format?

I'm uncomfortable with drawing so hard a line as to say that the music or
video is not Open in those cases. Certainly it's ideal that it be an Open
format as well, and we can all agree clearly that mp3 is not an Open
format, but does that make the music itself not Open until someone
transcodes it to ogg? As long as doing that transcoding is perfectly
feasible and nobody is forced to use anything proprietary to access the
music in the mp3…

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

>  FWIW, My view on this item is:
>
> I think we need to be careful about what battles to fight. The "at the
> least" wording makes it quite clear that we're not *endorsing* any
> proprietary format, but the current v2 definition doesn't set the bar so
> high that if everything is completely feasible with FLO software and
> otherwise open we say, "nope, this excel file is not Open". We don't want
> to encourage or ignore the issues with proprietary formats, but *maybe*
> we'll do better to have the minimum (usable with FLO software, fully
> accessible etc) and ideal (totally open format) versus insisting that any
> aspect of things being objectionable means the whole thing isn't open.
>
> I would say that the Excel file format is non-open (the format itself does
> not meet the OD), but data in Excel format when shown to be perfectly
> accessible with LibreOffice and otherwise Open is still Open data, even
> though we could say, "yeah, it meets this minimum, but this isn't ideal".
>
> So while I appreciate the concern, I think it's ok, but that's just me.
> And I'm trying to be pragmatic and think about making OD not totally black
> and white, just as we accept as Open certainl licenses that meet the
> definition but may be a little awkward or cumbersome.
>
> If *nothing* in the release of the Excel file with data gets in the way
> of any of the important values of access, modification, sharing etc. then
> the push for even better format is a battle we should fight but not
> all-or-nothing.
>
> Best,
> Aaron
>
> On 10/07/2014 09:42 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>
>  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 Pollock Founder 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing listod-discuss at lists.okfn.orghttps://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141007/efdc3bfc/attachment-0003.html>