[open-government] Defining Open Government Data?

Mon Nov 15 11:45:35 UTC 2010

One of the key improvements to this area would be to extend the FoI
obligations to private companies doing public works.

 The amount of "public data" could almost disappear in cases such as Suffolk
council in UK, which plan to outsource every single service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398678. Even the remaining info on
contracting would likely be denied on commercial confidentiality grounds.

Javier

2010/11/15 Innovation Report <innovation-navigator at chello.at>

>  I fully share your statement, Paul. Exzellent.
>
> In my theory on the FOI - PSI-re-use relationship
> I even go beyond that.
>
> eGovernment has to take into account that horizontal
> principle.
>
> kind regards,
>
>
> Gehard
>
> On 15.11.2010 01:51, Uhlir, Paul wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There is a huge difference in US law between information produced by Federal entities in the scope of their employment and information produced under grant of contract for the Federal government (I am not addressing state or local law in the US). The Federal info is exempt from copyright protection under section 105 of the 1976 Copyright Act. Information commissioned by the US Federal government under contract or grant has a broad range of terms and conditions associated with such arrangements, with most of them left under the proprietary control of the non-government parties. There is a legitimate debate on whether this approach is the right one, but there would be lot of push back from the non-government parties if the default rule of flexibility would be changed.
>
> I also want to address the FOIA debate raised earlier. As a general matter, FOIA is a mechanism of last resort to the citizen. It is not the primary approach for providing access, since the citizen needs to know the information is held by the government, then request the info, pay for the search, and can be denied in whole or in part. In some countries, the very act of requesting the info can be dangerous to the citizen. FOIA is thus an essential right, but a backup mechanism, not a panacea. E-government and other positive rights of dissemination and access are paramount. See http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15862&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
>
> Regards,
> Paul
> ________________________________________
> From: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org [open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of toby at law-democracy.org [toby at law-democracy.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:12 PM
> To: Jonathan Gray
> Cc: open-government at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [open-government] Defining Open Government Data?
>
> OK, this is interesting. In the right to information movement (and under
> RTI or FOI laws), openness attaches to information held by or accessible
> to public authorities (and not necessarily produced by or about them).
>
> For purpose of open government data, I can see at least two main reasons
> to focus on information about and produced/commissioned by government:
>
> 1) We can argue that copyright (or other forms of ownership protection)
> should not apply, which is more difficult than for information produced by
> private parties outside of a government contract (ie on the basis that the
> government is the people ...)
>
> 2) In terms of prioritising the release of data, given that this takes
> resources, this type of information is (often) more interesting (as Javier
> points out below).
>
> But do we want to restrict the definition to this? In my view it might
> unnecessarily limit the scope of what we are talking about, even if it
> does define the core information we are interested in.
>
> Best, Toby
>
>
>
>
>  Yes, in my view government data is definitely defined by origin
> (produced by public bodies), not by subject matter (what data is
> about). I see it as part of government data's big value that it is not
> just about government but about lots of different aspects of the world
> (environment, society, economy, ...).
>
> Hence, I would suggest leaving the provisional wording as is, along
> the lines of "produced or commissioned by government or government
> controlled entities". Leaving this open ended might have some
> advantages. We could list some examples (a la PSI Directive) to
> illustrate what we mean?
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Javier de la Cueva<jdelacueva at derecho-internet.org> <jdelacueva at derecho-internet.org> wrote:
>
>
>  El 19/10/10 19:00, Jonathan Gray escribió:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>  I envisage this as having two key components:
>
>   (i) legally open (as in opendefinition.org)
>   (ii) technically open (i.e. machine readable, available to download
> in bulk)
>
>
>
>  [...]
>
>
>
>  Any input/comments would be very much appreciated! We'd ideally like
> something ready at or just before Open Government Data Camp in London!
>
>
>
>  Perhaps I lost something important in this thread but I am concerned
> about another point: the content of the data. Even it is legally open,
> technically open and socially open, its content can be something not
> related at all with government.
>
> I have been looking in detail Spanish Proyecto Aporta and Catalonian new
> website and I can find things like links to search engines (which are to
> be most of the 719 records of Proyecto Aporta) or homeopathy vocabulary
> [1] in Gencat.
>
> I wonder if some precision should be made in the definition about the
> content of the data.
>
> [1] http://dadesobertes.gencat.cat/ca/dades-obertes/dataset_000088.html
>
> --
> Bests,
> Javier de la Cueva
>
>
>
>  --
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundationhttp://blog.okfn.org
> http://twitter.com/jwyghttp://identi.ca/jwyg
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing listopen-government at lists.okfn.orghttp://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>
>      ___________________________________
> Toby Mendel
>
> Centre for Law and Democracytoby at law-democracy.org
> Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
> Fax: +1 902 431-3689www.law-democracy.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing listopen-government at lists.okfn.orghttp://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing listopen-government at lists.okfn.orghttp://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>
>
>
> --
> ************************
> Gerhard Wagner
>
> 1. INNOVATION NAVI: PDF-Magazin fuer CEO und CIO
>
> 2. Interessenvertretung fuer e-Publishing, eCommerce, Infodienste (Gen-Sekr)
>
> 3. Dachverband fuer die Zivilgesellschaft (Forschung in EU wie CEE)
>
> 4. Lektor, Juror, Evaluator zu Open Data, Informations-Märkte, Osteuropa, Public Affairs
>
> 1010 Wien, Schillerplatz. Tel: 0676-36.9.36.10 (7-22h) innovation-navigator at chello.at
>
> Tip: Pfiffige Location fuer Ihren Event bzqw Vortragsabend (als NGO bzw Instituts)
> Sektor 5 - aufgebaut von Karin Ruthard und Yves
> 1050 Wien, Siebenbrunnengasse 44 (Ecke Spengergasse)www.sektor5.at  (ein co-working space auf 300 m2 mit Spezial-Features
>
> ***********************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101115/824ce111/attachment-0002.html>