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

[Aaron Wolf]

I agree with Herb's implication. the Definition should address any
concerns (i.e. provide clarity about what machine readable means), but
the handbook should adapt to fit the Definition… except that because the
handbook is data-specific, it can add or qualify things to be
data-specific in ways that the Definition must take care about.

On 05/15/2015 09:32 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> Is there some reason why the handbook can't align with the definition?
> 
> We have process in place if it turns out that the definition needs
> improvement.
> 
> Herb
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Stephen Gates <stephen.gates at me.com
> <mailto:stephen.gates at me.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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)
>      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)
> 
>     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/
>     - 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/ 
> 
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     od-discuss mailing list
>     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto: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
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com