[open-government] Defining Open Government Data?

[Ton Zijlstra]

Hi Jonathan,

Maybe we can add a component 'socially open' as well? Just this week I saw
the results of a study about municipal websites in the Netherlands, that had
as a result that while information and service were nominally available as
the law dictates, it was all very well hidden deep in websites to the point
of uselessness. No 'social openness' in short, as in findable, connected to
contexts etc., and absence of dialogue with re-users, feedback possibilities
for re-users towards PSB's etc.

Those three components, legally open, technically open, socially open were
also the components that floated to the foreground while we were writing on
the Open Data Manual in Berlin earlier this month.

best,
Ton
-------------------------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

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


On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:

> We'd like to start a process to encourage key stakeholders in the
> (rapidly growing!) world of open government data to have some
> consensus on what 'open government data' means. This would be a 'bare
> minimum' that would need to be complied with in order to be called
> OGD, not a wish list in an ideal world in perfect conditions.
>
> We already have several sets of principles [1], but many of these are
> quite jurisdiction specific -- e.g. according to 8 principles the
> Australian, New Zealand and UK governments don't have any open
> government data as it isn't 'license free', and the UK principles are
> clearly only intended for the UK (and it would be good not to have a
> different set of standards for each country!).
>
> We'd like something *really* simple that we can start to try to build
> consensus around. Hence I'd like to start discussion around a basic
> definition/standard that we can all start to encourage the adoption
> of, to distinguish open government data from e.g. a bunch of PDFs
> published on a website with no information about reuse, or an API with
> restrictive terms of use.
>
> 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)
>
> (i) would be to make sure that we don't start calling stuff 'open
> government data' which:
>
>  * doesn't explicitly let the public reuse it for any purpose
> (whether as a result of national copyright law, or departmental
> policy)
>  * doesn't permit derivative works
>  * doesn't permit commercial reuse
>
> (ii) would be to make sure that material is not *only*:
>
>  * available via an API
>  * available in non-machine readable formats, where machine readable
> copies exist
>
> I've started a draft along these lines at:
>
>  http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/definition
>
> Any input/comments would be very much appreciated! We'd ideally like
> something ready at or just before Open Government Data Camp in London!
>
>  http://opengovernmentdata.org/camp2010/
>
> All the best,
>
> Jonathan
>
> [1]
> http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/
> http://resource.org/8_principles.html
> http://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/opendataciviccapital.html
>
> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/28/new-uk-transparency-board-and-public-data-principles/
>
> --
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://blog.okfn.org
>
> http://twitter.com/jwyg
> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101019/bff0bd25/attachment-0001.html>