[okfn-discuss] OFCOM Public Service Publisher (PSP) consultation response

[Rufus Pollock]

Saul Albert wrote:
[snip]
> So - having looked through the other responses posted to the ofcom site
> - where my original blog post was re-posted, I think something much
>   more recommendation-like and less rant-like is in order.
> 
> How about something short and relatively simple like this:

I think this looks good but I have quite a few comments (see below). To 
my mind the essential thing is that the most effective use for PSP 
funding would be:

1. Developing infrastructure (including documentation) to assist others 
to create (open) content.

2. Seeding the knowledge (content/data) space by sponsoring the initial 
development of open material and open projects to get to the them point 
that they can then be taken on by the community (the history of F/OSS is 
full of examples of projects that needed some upfront investment of 
money/time/energy to get to point they became self-sustaining)

> -------------------------
> The founding of a Public Service Publisher (PSP) is an opportunity to
> make a significant ongoing investment in the vast landscape of publicly
> owned knowledge and the public knowledge infrastructures already

suggest: publicly owned -> open

> developing on the Net.
> 
> We, the undersigned would like to see the PSP joining the international
> communities of individuals, organisations and enlightened states
> investing in:
> 
> - Free, Libre and Open Source (FLOSS) technologies and systems.

Suggest:

- Open Content and Open Data. In particular we urge that, where the PSP 
fund the generation of new content, such content should always be made 
available under a license such that others are free to use, redistribute 
and most importantly re-use that content.

> - Advocacy and educational initiatives about viable alternatives to
>   restrictive Intellectual Property (IP) for publicly funded projects.

Not quite sure about this one: are we arguing that they should use the 
PSP to educate other governmental departments about openness?

> - Advocacy and educational initiatives for people, companies, local
>   government and organisations to publish their materials and public
>   data in open, traversable formats, using open APIs.

I completely agree with the open formats item (and it is part of the 
open knowledge definition

As I've posted about previously I have my concerns regarding open APIs 
vs. just having open data/open services. What good is an open API if the 
underlying data isn't open (so I can't redistribute or re-use that data 
freely).

> - Decentralized systems for the distribution of data and metadata (peer
>   to peer systems) for publicly funded and user generated content.
> - Open Source Semantic Web services and infrastructures for greater
>   association and interlinking and searching of online resources.

This is a nice item but a) this is a rather massive area :) b) is it 
really what one wants the PSP doing (perhaps but I'm just concerned that 
as a recommendation it is just too broad to have much impact)

> We feel that the PSP could have a vital role in addressing the strategic
> concerns of the Net as a global and national infrastructure; exploring
> and protecting the educational, commercial and societal possibilities of
> what 'public service' might mean in this new context.

Nice ending.

~rufus