[od-discuss] OD 2.1 draft

[Andrew Katz]

Hi Aaron


> On 16 Jan 2015, at 17:35, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is value in acknowledging when data is Open even when delivered in a non-Open format which is at least openable… but on the other hand, it's probably best to go all the way and require Open formats because we can simply say things like "the data from this city's government is almost fully Open but for the format, however, we have taken the data and re-released it in an Open format, so now it is fully Open!

Spot on. I agree entirely. I retain a little concern that the proprietary format might contain additional information which is not easily translatable, or accessible, into a truly open format, but, in general, if I can get the information I’m looking for in an .xls file, so long as I can easily export it into .csv (for example) and lawfully redistribute it in that format, I’m happy.



> 
> So, as long as we acknowledge that it is possible for non-Open data to be Openable (because the license is permissive enough to allow that), then I'm satisfied. Perhaps we should do something aside from the Open Definition to at least acknowledge this, even though it risks accepting a level of laziness from publishers… I think this sort of grey-area is *good* to acknowledge. It's just reality that there's grey, not everything is completely black and white.
> 
Yep.


> Happy to hear thoughts from others.

> Cheers,
> Aaron
> 
Best

Andrew