[od-discuss] Misalignment between Open Definition and Open Data Handbook

Fri May 15 09:18:47 UTC 2015

Hello,

I don’t think the definitions between the Open Format portion of the Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/od/> and the Open Data Handbook align.

Firstly, in the Open Data Handbook the term Five stars of open data <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/five-stars-of-open-data/> states, "The Open Definition <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-definition/> requires data to score 3 stars in order to qualify as open, not requiring RDF <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/rdf/> or linking”.

I’m not sure that it’s correct to say the data must be published as 3 star data.

The Open Format states, “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”.

The keyword here is “should” (i.e. not “must"). IETF RFC2119 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt> provides clear definitions of words like, should, must, shall, etc. So my reading of the Open Definition is that there is no requirement to publish 3 star data.

Secondly, the Open Data Handbook defines Open Format <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format/> as, “A file format <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/file-format/> whose structure is set out in agreed standards <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/standard>, overseen and published by a non-commercial expert body. A file in an open format enjoys the guarantee that it can be correctly read by a range of different software programs or used to pass information between them”.

This compares with Open Format in the Open Definition, “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”. 

These may appear similar but the keyword here is “or”, so a format can be open if it is defined by a standard or can be processes by one open-source software program.

This is further complicated by the proposed 2.1 version of the Open Format (https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown>)  that currently drops the requirement for an open format to be defined by a standard (based on the checked history of standards https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2015-May/001344.html <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2015-May/001344.html>)

The Open Format in v2.1 currently reads, “The work must be provided in an open format. An open format is one which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can be fully processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool. Data must be machine-readable and should be provided in bulk.”.

In this change fixes the “should” issue above by using “must” but everything hangs on the meaning of “machine-readable”.
- Open Data Handbook defines machine-readable at http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/machine-readable/ <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/machine-readable/>
- Open Definition does not define machine-readable

I’ve tried to explore the Open Format Definition recently with this update to the Open Format page http://opendefinition.org/ofd/ <http://opendefinition.org/ofd/> 

I think as both products are badged under the Open Knowledge brand, there should be strong alignment in the definitions.

thanks for reading this far.

Stephen Gates

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150515/f08fe278/attachment-0002.html>