[od-discuss] Open Format definition in new Open Data Handbook conflicts with proposed Open Format in Open Definition 2.1

[Andrew Rens]

The difference between the definitions recalls the history of Open Document
Format and OOXML - the Microsoft format.

For those unfamiliar with this history governments, concerned that core
information that they require to function is in proprietary formats which
will become inaccessible to them when proprietary vendors cease to support
the format or when the government chooses to use other software products.

Governments began starting to use open formats, specifically Open Document
Format which had been through an International Standards Organization
process and had
become an ISO standard.

As a consequence Microsoft took the specifications for .docx and purported
to write a standard from it, and then had a standards organization that
represents proprietary vendors introduce the standard to ISO.
Recall that ISO is not an international intergovernmental organization - it
is just a private gathering of standards bodies. OOXML was initially
rejected which resulted in it being sent to all the participating standards
bodies including national standards bodies in what became the most
politicized standards making process in the history of ISO. In some cases
politicians intervened in the processes of national standards bodies. There
were accusations of corruption in some European standards bodies. OOXML was
made an ISO standard but there has yet to be a complete implementation -
.docx does not implement OOXML properly.

As a result many of those who had participated in the ODF and OOXML
processes suggested that a definition of open format should be functional
and not procedural/institutional. Procedural definitions that refer to
standards bodies can be gamed too easily.

This history shows that the definition suggested in the Open Definition 2.1
is to be preferred to that in the current edition of the Open Data
Handbook, the Open Data Handbook can be updated to reflect the definition
of open format in the Open Definition 2.1

Of  course the proposed definition of open format in the Open Definition
may be improved but the objective should be to improve it as a description
of what the format permits rather than institutions, processes  which
endorse the format has undergone.

Andrew Rens
Open Counsel
Shuttleworth Foundation



On 14 May 2015 at 08:19, Stephen Gates <stephen.gates at me.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> The new Open Data Handbook has a definition for an Open Format
> http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format/
>
> 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. Compare
> proprietary <http://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/proprietary/>.
>
>
>
> This is different to the Open Format in the proposed Open Definition 2.1
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Should these definitions be more closely aligned?
>
>
> Stephen Gates
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150514/03ceeaef/attachment-0003.html>