[okfn-discuss] Open Data proposals for XTech

Mon Dec 18 12:27:37 UTC 2006

Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear all,
> 
> Remember the revised deadline for submissions is Monday 18th eg today:
> http://xtech.expectnation.com/event/1/public/cfp
> 
> Below i include an 'atomization' proposal cobbled together from Saul
> and Rufus' outlines. Perhaps it could be more technically specific.
> Included afterwards is another proposal i am submitting, which is just
> me ranting on about the distanced culture and glacial development pace 
> of "open" standards for geographic data. There's no "open standard
> definition", and the current definition of the term "open" allows for
> licensing fees!

I entirely agree with your point about 'open standards/formats'. There 
was quite a bit of debate about this (and drafting work) during the 
software patents directive as it included a whole section on 
interoperability and standards. The obvious position to take here (which 
is what was in the FFII draft) was that an open standard must be one 
that anyone can *freely* implement i.e. without any payment and without 
the need to seek permission from anyone (so no patent stuff and no RAND).

> Edd Dumbill, the conference chair of XTech is suggesting an "Open Data Summit" 
> at one end of the conference and also that OKF could be involved in this. 
> http://xtech.expectnation.com/event/1/public/cfp

That sounds like a great idea.

> Rufus, i would hope to hold off submitting this til tomorrow afternoon
> / evening and it would be just great if you in partic could offer
> feedback on the first one, as i think it needs an extra something but
> am too tired to give it real attention. :/ you may want to add more 
> in the way of examples, or expand the narrative a bit - it's just 
> cobbled together from your blog entries. From all, random rewrites welcome.

sounds great Jo. Thanks for putting this together.

> 
> Atomization: the Fourth Principle of Open Data Development
> ==========================================================
> 
> [[this title suggested by Saul is meant to bring a self-improvement,
> "Celestine Prophecy" tone to the proceedings]]
> [[i am not sure 'atomization' or 'atomisation' i think the first
> looks better and do we actually need to be consistent?]]

I'd concur with Saul on this one and go for something simpler (and 
perhaps duller) such as:

'Atomisation and Open Data'

Rather than commenting on each para individually here is a revised 
version. I've made it much shorter (which I hope is ok) because I think 
for abstracts one wants to keep it as short and focused as possible 
(e.g. I like Saul's transclusion idea but I think it might be too much 
:) for a proposal abstract)

Atomisation and Open Data
=========================

Atomisation on a large scale (such as in the Debian 'apt' packaging 
system) has allowed large software projects to be amazingly productive 
through their use of a decentralised, collaborative, incremental 
development process. Atomisation works so well because it allows us to 
'divide and conquer' the organizational and conceptual problems of 
highly complex systems.

But what other kinds of information can be atomised? What are the 
possibilities -- and problems -- of this approach for forms of 
information other than software? How do we best design data APIs, 
discover and distribute existing resources, and recombine decentralised 
datasets?

Drawing on examples from geodata to shakespeare we'll demonstrate how 
atomisation is key to unlocking the potential of open data as well as 
how we can best begin to apply the lessons of open source to the world 
of open data.
-----

How does this sound? Hope it is not too short and gives sufficient 
detail. If this is ok are you happy to send this off?

[snip]

 > Letter from Geospatial: Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source
 > ==============================================================

This is really interesting stuff Jo. I think you could tighten this 
would benefit from a bit of tightening up (in general i think you coudl 
be more definite and have fewer qualifiers such as 'some', 'like' e.g. 
'"incubated" some concerns' -> 'incubated concerns'). Just my 2p so feel 
free to ignore.

 > The "open standards, open data, open source" mantra is not unique to
 > the geospatial community, but is core to it. Due to our high degree of
 > specialisation, socialisation and closeness to data, the open source
 > geospatial community has "incubated" some concerns that are coming to
 > be apparent in domains where software, knowledge and scientists are
 > not yet so close together.

so close together -> close together

 > Our standards consortium is like a networking club for proprietary
 > interests; its recent specifications are baggy monsters, filled with
 > extensions largely concerning access rights, limits and payment
 > mechanisms. Their older, core standards for RESTful web services *are*
 > widely used, and have helped the geospatial community to a new level
 > of "interoperability", as it is still quaintly known.

Suggest delete: ', as it is still quaintly known.'

 > The new wave of web-based "neogeography" drove the development of
 > community-based specifications for the simple exchange of geographic
 > information have become de facto standards. There has been an
 > implementation-driven focus from open source projects seeking to make
 > it easier to contribute, distribute and maintain open licensed
 > geographic information. Now our standards organisation has the bright
 > idea of a "mass market", "lightweight" standards programme to harness
 > the energy in this activity. Their established membership, with a lot
 > of time vested in the matter, are not happy with this.
 >
 > In the decision-making bodies following the advice of traditional
 > domain experts, much issue is made of "discovery", "catalog services"
 > and "service discovery services". Among the "grassroots" at the nexus
 > of open source, open standards and open data there is a call for a
 > "geospatial web" approach, re-using as much as possible existing
 > distribution mechanisms and toolkits, RSS/Atom in particular.
 >
 > ISO standards for information exchange are not solving the problems
 > faced by the geospatial community. Yet they are being embedded in
 > international law; "risk management" and disaster recovery provide a
 > big political drive for exchanging more geographic information.
 > Through the Open Source Geospatial Foundation, the community is
 > attempting to influence decision-making bodies through the strength of
 > the open source / open data approach. "Open" standards are a gateway
 > to this, and it is a sad day when our official specification for
 > metadata exchange is an "add to my shopping basket" page.

? should it be: 'includes an "add to ....' rather than 'is an ....'

 > There's always a lack of emphasis on contribution; transaction and
 > feedback are an afterthought. The traditional theory of "Public
 > Participation GIS" comes closer to implementable reality.
 > "Collaborative mapping" projects producing open licensed data are
 > becoming the stuff of business plans. The ISO moves in glacial time;
 > it would be of benefit to shorten the circuit.
 >
 > How can we bring good status to "complementary specifications"?
 > Can we use open source software to influence decision-makers?
 > Can we help provide a good data licensing precedent for others?
 > Do our distributed storage and query problems look like yours?

Think you need to add a finishing sentence, perhaps: 'These are all 
questions that the any open data community must ask itself -- and there 
one's with which we in open geodata are already intimately familiar.'

Regards,

Rufus