[okfn-discuss] Suggestion to sign the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness

Sun Jul 15 14:17:39 UTC 2012

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 02:50:25PM +0100, Tom Rees wrote:
> That is correct :-) We had some very interesting discussions, especially
> concerning the tech side of things. I think OKFN's Labs initiative could be
> relevant to the shared technology stack. I am more of a believer in an
> ecosystem of open tools than a suite of coupled off-the-shelf components
> for building parliamentary monitoring websites though.

indeed. i think it's more important to have standardized formats, so that
a diverse toolset can be reused on different datasets.

unfortunately the session on parliamentary metadata standards was basically a
sales presentation for bungemi. it's not that i don't want to reuse such
tools, but it's that we all have very different data, and the few existing
tools are not suited for them - and let's admit bungeni is kinda heavy.

i'm currently hacking a tool that converts the EC proposals to legaldocml, i'm
happy there is a standard, so i hope there will be soon supporting tools for
it. the problem is, that only few PMOs handle the legal texts themselves, most
do monitor representatives, roll-call votes and similar metadata stuff. for
these there's no proposed standards, before standardizing the tools PMOs
should come up with standard schemas for data.

-- 
gpg: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg
gpg fp: F617 AC77 6E86 5830 08B8  BB96 E7A4 C6CF A84A 7140
otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt