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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On 05/15/2015 02:18 AM, Stephen Gates wrote:
> 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.

https://github.com/okfn/opendatahandbook/pull/114 if accepted would make 
the handbook accurate.

Mike