[open-government] Defining Open Government Data?

Thu Oct 21 08:18:12 UTC 2010

Hello Brian, all

Two quick questions/thoughts:

 - On non-commercial

Brian said: "One other point, I see no value in excluding commercial use of
government data.  Very good services have been create using government data.
 For instance, weather and GPS data.  A license that precludes the
commercial use of government information is of little use beyond the academy
and think tanks."

The other significant group missing from that list of 'academy and think
thanks' is wider citizen groups & civil society. There are many possible
uses of open government data for holding states to account; for scrutinising
local services; for improving local provision; etc. which can occur without
rights to commercial data use. These are often direct uses of government
data (e.g. finding out a key fact about local planning; comparing statistics
for your area against others when lobbying local politicians) rather than
're-uses' which do require greater latitude in licensing.

These democratically focussed and non-commercial uses may only constitute
10% of the total possible uses of OGD when commercial use is permitted.
However, they are significant in their own right: which is why I've
suggested that there may be justifications for some acknowledgement of
non-commercial data as 'open within a limited sense' (clearly not 'fully
open' which requires no restrictions on re-use).

So 'fully open data' should allow commercial use; but there is a form of
democratic openness which doesn't require commercial re-use rights, and that
surely has some place in an open government data definition?

 - On global applicability and technology-specificity.

Comparing to the open science definition: if we're looking towards globally
applicable principles / definitions - how far should those be
internet-centric? Whilst Internet penetration is rapidly rising, I can
imagine many contexts in which the most practical sharing of open data may
still use physical media (practically working with data tends to require
fairly high bandwidth environments).

The open science definition focusses only on data being internet-accessible:
which should be part of the base-line of any definition; and it's fairly
reasonable (although not entirely) to assume the science community have
access to adequate bandwidth Internet connections (and there is no
in-principle obligation on the scientist in one country to ensure a
scientist in another country has the resources to access the scientific data
they have published). However, when it comes to state data, published in
part on the basis of citizen-rights to that data, there may be a greater
responsibility on the state to ensure citizens have effective access to the
data published - which might mean thinking about other (additional &
complementary) routes to making data available.

(N.B. I'm not suggesting that such routes should be explicit in a definition
or principles. Rather that if definition/principles want global
applicability then such definition/principles need to be sensitive to (a)
differences in technology diffusion across the world; and (b) sensitive to
future changes in technology that might render terms obsolete (only really
an issue for a definition - principles are easier to 'update' over time
without complications).

All the best

Tim

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Brian Gryth <briangryth at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jonathan and Tim,
>
 ....
> Furthermore, Jonathan you point us to the science definition, which states,
>
> "By open data in science we mean that it is freely available on the public
> Internet permitting any user to download, copy, analyse, re-process, pass
> them to software or use them for any other purpose without financial, legal,
> or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to
> the Internet itself. To this end data related to published science should be
> explicitly placed in the public domain."
>
> With the exception of the public domain bit, I think this definition would
> work in the government space.  Public domain licensing would be to
> exclusive, even if preferred.  If we can get government to release data
> under the least restrictive license possible that would be ideal.
>

One

>
> More illustrative of what we need are recommended principles for
> government, like those of Panton Principles, http://pantonprinciples.org/.
>
>
> The principles outline thus far are a starting point, (i.e. license/legal,
> technical/format, social).  I am concerned that we are creating a definition
> that will dissuaded rather that encourage.  Let us not create a box so
> restrictive that only but a few can get into.
>
> One other point, I see no value in excluding commercial use of government
> data.  Very good services have been create using government data.  For
> instance, weather and GPS data.  A license that precludes the commercial use
> of government information is of little use beyond the academy and think
> tanks.
>
> Again these thought are my opinion and I may be miss guided.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Peltola Gryth
> twitter.com/briangryth
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Tim Davies <tim at timdavies.org.uk> wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > This is a really useful discussion. Some thoughts below...
>> > On the question of a definition
>> > I'm sceptical about the value of a solid-line definition which says some
>> > things are in - some things are out - when it comes to open government
>> data.
>>
>> That would be exactly what the definition would be. ;-)
>>
>> Like F/OSS definitions. About baseline compliance. I think that part
>> of the value here would be in being able to say you must do X and Y
>> *at a bare minimum* to make sure your stuff (government data) is open.
>>
>> > The Open Definition already provides a solid definition of a particular
>> > notion of openness - and at most a short FAQ on how this applies to
>> > government data should cover providing a sense of a gold-standard for
>> > something being 'formally' open.
>>
>> Exactly, but it is isn't yet widely adopted as a standard. I hope in
>> this discussion we can draw out any domain specific
>> points/assumptions/etc. A bit like the Panton Principles build on
>> opendefinition.org for science:
>>
>> http://pantonprinciples.org/
>>
>> > Models like the 'Five Stars of Open Linked Data'
>> > (
>> http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/06/04/the-5-stars-of-open-linked-data/)
>> > are far more useful in both helping people assess their current
>> openness,
>> > and providing a motivational structure for making data available.
>> > An adapted version of the 5-stars, talking about licenses in place of
>> > linked-data etc., and adding a 'social openness' step at the end may be
>> one
>> > route to a definition.
>>
>> Hmm.. I would almost be tempted to say we should separate this into:
>>
>>  (i) are we talking about 'open government data' or not?
>> (definition/standard)
>>  (ii) are we doing this *well* -- e.g. is it connected to other
>> resources, are we doing 'social stuff', is there good documentation,
>> etc. (principles/guidelines/star ratings)
>>
>> > A good definition for the end-user should be able to be re-formulated
>> into a
>> > set of questions, such as:
>> >
>> > (License) Is your data published under a license that allows it to be
>> > re-used by anyone, or placed into the public domain so there are no
>> > restrictions on re-use?
>> >
>> > (Format) Is your data accessible to humans and machines in a structured
>> way?
>> > (As a good rule of thumb, if it's possible for a re-user to take a copy
>> of
>> > your data, load it into standard software, and edit that copy easily,
>> it's
>> > machine-readable).
>> >
>> > (Social) Have you worked to ensure that citizens and other potential
>> > re-users of your data have access to the additional information, tools
>> and
>> > resources that they would need to make effective use of your data?
>> >
>> > Social openness
>> > The last point there is my attempt at some sort of
>> social openness clause.
>> > Clearly it isn't unambiguous (what's 'effective', or enough effort in
>> > 'working to ensure'?) but it tries to capture what might be the steps
>> > governments (and wider communities are encouraged to take) to ensure the
>> > data is usable and used in practice.
>> > The practical openness of any dataset is not a property only of that
>> > dataset, but also of the tools-chains available; access to knowledge and
>> > skills; access to meta-data; etc. - and government clearly has a role to
>> > play in promoting access to and development of those resources - but the
>> > responsibility is shared with civil society / citizens / communities /
>> > business.
>>
>> Fully agree that social stuff is important -- this is mostly what I work
>> on. ;-)
>>
>> At the same time I can't help think it might be useful to pick out
>> properties of the data for certain practical purposes. If government
>> doesn't do certain things (adding correct metadata, connect with other
>> data sources, allow commenting, ...) then others (like mySociety,
>> OpenlyLocal, Sunlight Foundation) can possibly do it. If its not under
>> an open license, then legally speaking, no-one can do it. If a dataset
>> is in a weird format but under an open license, then someone can
>> convert it to something more useful (like numerous people have done
>> with COINS or Eurostat).
>>
>> I guess the main danger about having a definition that is too basic
>> and sparse is that we lower expectations -- and people think once they
>> comply with the definition (e.g. once that they have done the legal
>> and technical stuff) that is enough, and they don't need to do
>> anything else. I guess my feeling is that this is a question of
>> strategy, and we should work to build a culture (in advocacy, in
>> policy making) where its clear that this often isn't enough (e.g. with
>> talks, manuals, guidance, websites, ...). This also applies to things
>> like funding prototypes, to having data registries and so on. There
>> isn't a universally applicable recipe to getting things right, but we
>> can certainly provide guidance and instruction based on
>> evidence/experience from around the world.
>>
>> I think the main danger not having a definition is that people will
>> start applying the term 'open government data' to material with
>> restrictive terms of use, or to services where material is only
>> available via an API (e.g. with limited number of queries, or onerous
>> contractual obligations or registration procedures).
>>
>> Finding a path (or at least plotting several possible paths) between
>> Scylla and Charybdis is exactly what I'd like to try to achieve in
>> this discussion. ;-)
>>
>> > The one point in here which might be slightly separate, around providing
>> > 'additional information' (in practice, meta-data and guides/handbooks
>> > etc.).
>> > Would a separate meta-data term of the 'definition' be useful?
>> > Different sorts of openness: commercial and civic?
>> > I'm sure it's a debate that's been over many times, and one it seems OKF
>> > have a fairly settled position on - but I do think it's worth the
>> > distinction between: 'civic openness' and 'commercial openness' being
>> made -
>> > particularly for the broadest possible use of a definition.
>> > If a government does not wish to make data available for commercial
>> re-use,
>> > but accepts free access to machine-readable data for citizens to use in
>> > non-commercial ways - that has significant potential benefits for
>> democracy
>> > - and should be recognised as an open data policy; albeit only providing
>> > 'civic/democratic openness' and clearly shown to fail on 'commercial
>> > openness'.
>>
>> Hmm, I'm *really* not convinced that we should call material released
>> under non-commercial licenses 'open government data'. That doesn't
>> mean it isn't valuable or important!
>>
>> What do we gain by counting NC stuff as open government data?
>> Recognition for civil servants who have run up against
>> 'insurmountable' internal barriers? What do we lose? Its much harder
>> to convince people to move to non-NC licenses from NC licenses if they
>> are convinced that both are fully open. This is really important for
>> an interoperable data commons (e.g. combining things with Wikipedia,
>> Open Street Map, etc). Otherwise we have a two tier eco-system: one
>> tier for commercial operators and one for everyone else. Also if
>> companies have to pay for data licenses for 'open government data' are
>> they going to be inclined to share back their modifications with
>> everyone else? Suspect this could have some pretty undesirable
>> consequences for the open data 'ecosystem' down the line.
>>
>> > Of course - this moves from single unified definition more towards
>> > 'framework' - but, as above, my sense is that definitional frameworks,
>> > rather than exclusionary definitions, are a better route to go...
>> > Other points
>> > One other point that might have a place in a framework would be around
>> > 'Making Connections'. Perhaps (connected) is the top of a five-stars of
>> open
>> > government data?
>> >
>> > (Connecting Data to Information) When you publish information (charts /
>> > tables / reports) based on your data, do you provide a clear link back
>> to
>> > the original data, and any other information re-users would need to
>> > understand how the information was generated?
>> >
>> > (Drawing
>> > on
>> http://practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/2010/2-3-data-and-information/
>> )
>> >
>> > (Connecting Data) Do you use linked-data approaches to make connections
>> > between your data and other datasets.
>> >
>> > Hope these are useful inputs...
>>
>> Yes -- finding this discussion really useful. In particular we should
>> articulate why we want a definition in the first place. Added notes
>> for a preamble:
>>
>>  http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/definition
>>
>> > All the best
>> > Tim
>> > -
>> >
>> > +44 (0)7834 856 303
>> > @timdavies
>> > http://www.timdavies.org.uk
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Ton Zijlstra <ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I agree with keeping things simple.
>> >> > However, a minimalistic way of adding some 'social open' notions
>> could
>> >> > be
>> >> > enough for now:
>> >> >
>> >> > findability (such as datasets described in a way that my average self
>> >> > can
>> >> > find it, without learning Dept X particular lingo)
>> >> > such as having a contactperson and e-mail address mentioned with a
>> >> > dataset
>> >> > e.g.,
>> >> > a way of giving feedback on data sets etc,
>> >> > showing contextual provenance other than 'Dept X published this' and
>> >> > more
>> >> > along the lines: this was collected for task x by body y, and used in
>> z
>> >> > way,
>> >> > and things like when it will be next updated.
>> >>
>> >> Okay -- I agree that this is useful. Lets try and formulate it. Say a
>> >> local government body puts a spreadsheet (tick: machine readable,
>> >> technically open) online on their website at <some.gov.xa/data> under
>> >> CC0 (tick: public domain, legally open). It is *nearly* there -- but
>> >> how do we know whether the material they've uploaded is open
>> >> government data? Do they need to do one of a short list of things to
>> >> make sure its socially open? All of a short list of things? Is their
>> >> URL enough? Say they put a news item on their press section? Or Tweet
>> >> it? Do they need to have an event? Should they solicit for feedback?
>> >> Bear in mind we are focusing on open government *data* rather than
>> >> open *government*, per se. How can we capture the social openness in a
>> >> sentence or two, and ensure that it is clear enough that a non-expert
>> >> could apply the rule in a majority of cases (like a dataset being
>> >> machine readable or not, or a license being open or not).
>> >>
>> >> > none of those are tech-aspects or legal aspects, but important
>> >> > nonetheless
>> >> > to render a data set useful.
>> >> > the whole 'stay in touch with all your stakeholders' 'community
>> >> > building'
>> >> > 'being a platform for re-users' can be part of the natural growth
>> path
>> >> > on
>> >> > top of the minimalistic definitions.
>> >> >>Also are we saying that governments should do social stuff on PSB
>> >> >>websites
>> >> >
>> >> > My answer would be yes. It's called interacting with citizens, and a
>> >> > primary
>> >> > ingredient of having a public sphere at all. I'd say 'doing social
>> >> > stuff' is
>> >> > a core task of gov :)
>> >>
>> >> Yes indeed! Sorry should have said: is it essential for *open
>> >> government data* that government does social stuff. I.e. should PSIH's
>> >> be required to 'do social stuff' *in order* for their data to be
>> >> considered open? A very different question from should governments 'do
>> >> social stuff' full stop. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> > Also indications are pretty strong that it's the 'socially open'
>> aspects
>> >> > that ultimately drive the adoption of re-use.
>> >>
>> >> I think it can really depend on the context. E.g. in the UK there was
>> >> a flourishing civic hacker community *before* the Cabinet Office
>> >> started funding hackdays, or, indeed, before it launched data.gov.uk.
>> >> Folks had to look a lot harder for the data in those days -- but the
>> >> absence of social openness wasn't necessarily the main blocker. I know
>> >> that in several countries where open government data isn't on the
>> >> agenda at all, there are communities who are keen to get hold of
>> >> certain datasets. I'd be interested in hearing more anecdotes about
>> >> this but I get the impression that in many cases prospective reusers
>> >> know what they are looking for, and the key thing is getting it under
>> >> an open license in a form which isn't unusable (e.g. PDF, weird legacy
>> >> database, ...).
>> >>
>> >> Of course if governments who don't have a flourishing (prospective)
>> >> re-user community already want to see results fast, they may do stuff
>> >> to catalyse uptake, or increase impact of opening up. The question is
>> >> do we want to *require* this in a definition of open government data?
>> >> Could this not be setting the bar quite high for, e.g. some countries
>> >> where governments may have very limited budget?
>> >>
>> >> > As well as it seems the way to
>> >> > take away unarticulated fears of data holders.
>> >> > These data sets become objects of sociality, creating and sustaining
>> >> > conversations with and around gov. To not make sure there's a conduit
>> >> > for
>> >> > that interaction is setting it up to fail. As the example of opening
>> >> > landownership data in Bangladesh shows us.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed -- but my impression is that this is not necessarily something
>> >> that an email address, feedback form or data catalogue would fix. But
>> >> point taken. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> > All in all, I think 'social stuff' is key.
>> >> > It may very well be that part of the resulting interaction need not
>> be
>> >> > connected to a singular dataset but rather to a corpus of datasets,
>> such
>> >> > as
>> >> > a data catalogue.
>> >> > Maybe my point is that if you posit this as a technology or legal
>> driven
>> >> > thing only, gov's will miss why it's important and that will make the
>> >> > open
>> >> > definition become self-defeating to a certain extent.
>> >>
>> >> *Absolutely* agree that social stuff is important. My question is
>> >> whether this should be dealt with in our minimalist bare-bones
>> >> definition, or in ancillary material. E.g. on opengovernmentdata.org,
>> >> the open data manual, etc. I feel I could be persuaded either way and
>> >> would love to hear what other folks think!
>> >>
>> >> As an analogy: what of the free/open source software approach
>> >> (collaborative development, methodology, etc) can you find in the
>> >> free/open source definition?
>> >>
>> >> All edits/comments most welcome! ;-)
>> >>
>> >>  http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/definition
>> >>
>> >> All the best,
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan
>> >>
>> >> > best,
>> >> > Ton
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Jonathan Gray <
>> jonathan.gray at okfn.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes agree this is very important, and we wrote about aspects of this
>> >> >> in several recent reports [1].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, I strongly feel that for present purposes the definition
>> >> >> should be (i) *very very* simple (as easy as possible to determine
>> >> >> compliance) and (ii) unambiguous to evaluate. How would one
>> determine
>> >> >> if something is socially open? Would it be clear cut in every case?
>> >> >> Also thinking of free/open source software definitions do we perhaps
>> >> >> want to separate between subject matter (data) and surrounding
>> >> >> processes (how it is published, social openness) for purposes of a
>> >> >> definition, even though both are important?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also are we saying that governments should do social stuff on PSB
>> >> >> websites, or do also want to enable and encourage innovation from
>> >> >> outside government? A major point in Tom Steinberg/Ed Mayo's
>> excellent
>> >> >> Power of Information report [2].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jonathan
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [1] cf. e.g.
>> http://writetoreply.org/beyondaccess/4-1-discoverability/
>> >> >> and http://www.unlockingaid.info/3/
>> >> >> [2]
>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/poi/power-of-information-review.pdf
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Ton Zijlstra <
>> ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > 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
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jonathan Gray
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Community Coordinator
>> >> >> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> >> >> http://blog.okfn.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>> >> >> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  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
>>
>
>

-- 

+44 (0)7834 856 303
@timdavies
http://www.timdavies.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101021/dd1dc089/attachment-0001.html>