[open-government] Introductions

[Jonathan Gray]

Thanks for your email, Gerhard!

2010/5/27 Content Research <contentissimo at chello.at>:
> 1. I fully agree with your comments that this Soros
> Foundation Study is rather useless or even misguiding.
> I do not even cite this study.

I would love to hear in more detail about what you consider its main
deficiencies to be! E.g. specific things that you think it should have
covered better, identification of misleading claims or factual
inaccuracies...

> 2. I have the strong impression that none of the recent
> authors has participated in any Epsiplus meeting in the
> past years and have read any of their/my studies.

For what its worth, many at the Open Knowledge Foundation have always
been in close contact with ePSIplus network. Also Chris Corbin is on
our advisory board:

  http://okfn.org/about/people#ChristopherCorbin

Also at the OKF (at least as long as I have been here) we *always*
strongly suggest that European open government data advocates contact
their ePSIplus/ePSIplatform representative, and learn more about what
is happening regarding national transposition of the PSI Directive.
E.g. I was speaking to some advocates here in Berlin about this last
week, and some of the things that came up included:

  http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-de/2010-May/000085.html

Regarding your papers, what would you recommend as being most relevant
for this list? In general I would note that there is a pretty
important difference between ignorance and disagreement (Especially if
your presentations are scattered with ad hominems like: "Open data is
driven by freaky guys", "Open data freaks", etc --
<http://www.cciia.com/library/Open-data-policy-evaluated-by-Wagner.pdf>)

> Even the literature in the 60ies was far behind that what
> I currently am pleased to read.
> Open data entails so many complex legal, organisational
> and financial questions where none of the open data
> evangelists have even thought of.

Which evangelists are you thinking of? What issues are you thinking
of? Examples would be very helpful to help us substantiate your
claims, and to help 'evangelists' to become better informed.

Also, while I agree that knowledge of the various complexities is very
important (e.g. whether there are special provisions regarding
government information in national copyright legislation, knowing
about existing licensing and pricing regimes and how these work, etc.)
-- the extent to which these complexities are directly relevant to
open government data advocacy depends on the argument that you are
making. For example, in order to make the case that there are
compelling benefits to opening up official data (perhaps with
reference to interesting or useful web applications such as Gapminder,
TheyWorkForYou or Farm Subsidy) -- do we really need to allude to the
details of US Government Circular No. A-130 in 1996, the UK's 2000
Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy, and so on, *every
time*?

While the OKF is not a campaigning organisation, the Guardian's 'Free
our data' campaign could not really have been called the campaign to
'allow non-personal information that is gathered, processed and stored
by government bodies in pursuance of their public duty, and not
withheld from the public on grounds of national security, to be reused
by the public for any purpose at marginal cost (i.e. zero) where the
overall cost to society does not exceed the benefit of doing so'.

Also 'there are benefits to doing X' does not mean 'there are always
benefits to doing X', or 'we should always do X'. To paraphrase Bob
Dylan, not all open data advocates say that all government data should
be open all of the time. It is only fairly recently that digital
technologies have made it so easy for people to represent, analyse and
deliver official information in new ways - and many open government
data advocates simply seek to articulate and communicate these new
opportunities to public bodies and the public, and to explain how data
should be published in order to encourage innovative reuse.

> I haven't came across any handbook which assists Governments
> to transpose this complex issue step by step in line
> with complex national legislation.

Not sure what you are proposing? Do you think there should be a single
handbook to help with PSI Directive transposition in European member
states with information on complexities (legal, economic,
organizational, ...) in each country? Would this not become a little
unwieldy? ;-)

I do think there is room for a *very basic* open government data
handbook which explains various legal and technical aspects of making
data open from perspective of reuser. E.g. what do we mean by 'raw
data', what do we mean by 'legally open' (and how is this different
from 'available online'), what are the possible benefits (e.g. citizen
driven web applications and services a la Sunlight and mySociety),
what experiences have other countries had with open government data
initiatives (e.g. in Australia, Norway, NZ, Spain, UK, US, ...) and so
on.

All the best,

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg