[open-government] Defining Open Government Data?

[Ton Zijlstra]

HI all,

I have written down some of my thoughts on why socially open I think needs
to be part somehow of an 'open data definition'. It's basically a write-up
of the short talk I gave with Bill Roberts on this at the OGD Camp in London
2 weeks ago. See
http://www.zylstra.org/blog/archives/2010/11/socially_open_g.html

My main point is basically in the last paragraph of that blog posting:
"By focusing, when defining what open data is, on just the technical and
legal aspects we overlook that the needed change of mindset concerning
opening government and its data up is only adressed by social aspects. If we
leave that out of how we define open data, and relegate it only to what
happens *after* the release of data that is already deemed 'open', and not
as part of how we *get to* labeling data as 'open', we are simply not
addressing the purpose of it all."



best,

Ton
-------------------------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

http://zylstra.org/blog
-------------------------------------------


2010/11/16 Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>

>
> I am checking with our legal advisory board if UK is similar, but I think
> we have a different system. Someone was telling me that even a joint body
> set up by two local authorities would be exempt from FOIA. I will get back
> to the list with confirmed advice.
>
>
> 2010/11/15 Katleen Janssen <Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be>
>
>>  The ‘privatization of data’ through outsourcing can be a concern, but
>> there are some examples where the definition of ‘public authority’ subject
>> to the FOI legislation should be broad enough to cover these types of
>> outsourcing deals.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, the Belgian legislation includes bodies that have been
>> entrusted by a ‘real’ public body with a service performed in the public
>> interest. The European directive on environmental information should
>> probably also be broad enough to cover these situations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the UK definition not broad enough to cover this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> katleen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
>> open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Tony Kennick
>> *Sent:* maandag 15 november 2010 13:01
>> *To:* open-government at lists.okfn.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [open-government] Defining Open Government Data?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/15 Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>
>>
>> One of the key improvements to this area would be to extend the FoI
>> obligations to private companies doing public works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any such extension would need careful drafting so it couldn't be used by
>> competitors to dig out data from parts of any such company.
>>
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>>
>> The governments plans for data to be opened up so the public can directly
>> assess the performance of local authorities only makes sense if it doesn't
>> matter whether the council provides services directly or by contracting
>> out. Whole swathes of data publishing will need to be set out in contracts
>> as a required as part of the service delivery.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tony Kennick
>>
>> Technophobia Limited.
>>
>> The Workstation
>>
>> 15 Paternoster Row
>>
>> SHEFFIELD
>>
>> England
>>
>> S1 2BX
>>
>> Phone: +44 (0)114 2212123  Fax: +44 (0)114 2212124
>>
>> Email: tony at technophobia.co.uk
>>
>> WWW: http://www.technophobia.com
>>
>> Twitter: @WeTechnoPhobia
>>
>> Registered in England and Wales Company No. 3063669
>>
>> VAT registration No. 598 7858 42
>>
>> ISO 9001:2000 Accredited Company No. 21227
>>
>> ISO 14001:2004 Accredited Company No. E997
>>
>> ISO 27001:2005 (BS7799) Accredited Company No. IS 508906
>>
>> Investor in People Certified No. 101507
>>
>>
>>
>> The contents of this email are confidential to the addressee and are
>>
>> intended solely for the recipients use. If you  are not the addressee, you
>>
>> have received this email in error. Any disclosure, copying, distribution
>> or
>>
>> action taken  in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the author personally
>> and
>>
>> not TechnoPhobia Limited who do not  accept responsibility for the
>> contents
>>
>> of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> All email communications, in and out of TechnoPhobia, are recorded for
>>
>> monitoring purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-government mailing list
>>
>> open-government at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101130/ec3e1040/attachment-0002.html>