No subject
Sun Mar 31 09:34:23 UTC 2013
So why point 3. is important? Mainly because there is a strong risk of
lock-in for adopters when it does not work on a consensus. And this is bad.
It might not be bad _now_, but it can become in the future is some
organization feel that they are locked in. After that, they won't want to
engage in any non-officialized-ISO-like format.
Also note that consensus does not mean that everything is accepted if a
majority agrees. The charter can define the target and the raison d'etre of
a format as well as a set of criteria (or an algo) to evaluate the
relevance of requested changes. So it we say, for example, that the raison
d'=EAtre of GTFS is publishing data, any request to ease internal operation
of agencies should not be accepted from the beginning while request to
improve fare calculation for trip planning would be evaluated. (that's a
little black and white, but I hope everybody gets it.)
Steph
--=20
St=E9phane Guidoin
Director, Transportation
Open North
514-862-0084
http://opennorth.ca
Twitter: @opennorth / @hoedic
--001a11c2f670e0384604e1cb3e28
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I am also spinning off a new thread from the "Open tr=
ansport data tools" thread since this point was a little off topic.<di=
v><br></div><div>At one point I said that GTFS is not an open format/standa=
rd and Brian asked me to explain what I meant. Though the definition of ope=
n in this context is not clear (and even what a standard is...), I wanted t=
o clarify what I meant (and hear some comments if any).</div>
<div><br></div><div>For me, an open format in the context of open data shou=
ld have the following:</div><div><ol><li>Freely available specs (probably o=
bvious for everybody here)<br></li><li>Use of open technology: No link with=
an existing implementation, no link with a specific development language o=
r platform, no technological entry barrier, no patent related to it. (I gue=
ss everybody agrees on that one also).<br>
</li><li>A clearly defined consensus-based governance (this is one where I =
will have less agreements). By that, I mean that:<br></li><ol><li>There is =
some sort of charter that explains how decisions are taken, mainly by "=
;committee"</li>
<li>Anybody can join the committee (paid membership is possible but should =
be low and allow for example non-profits or individuals to join). The chart=
ers should explain how people are joining, mainly if there are too many can=
didates</li>
</ol><li>Optionally, an open license should be applied to the spec (for the=
moment, I don't know any format governed by a open-licensed spec, but =
there are some discussions about this at w3c. Read this for more: <a href=
=3D"http://berjon.com/blog/2013/04/w3c-open-license.html">http://berjon.com=
/blog/2013/04/w3c-open-license.html</a>).</li>
</ol>The format does NOT need=A0</div><div><ul><li>to be part of standardiz=
ation body, until the governance is clear</li><li>to be <i>created</i> on a=
consensus based process. Adoption is mainly what defines a de facto standa=
rd. Once we reach a certain level of adoption, stakeholders should agree on=
the governance.=A0<br>
</li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div><br></div><div>From what I=
see, many formats fall short on point 3, for example GTFS.=A0</div><div><b=
r></div><div>So why point 3. is important? Mainly because there is a strong=
risk of lock-in for adopters when it does not work on a consensus. And thi=
s is bad. It might not be bad _now_, but it can become in the future is som=
e organization feel that they are locked in. After that, they won't wan=
t to engage in any non-officialized-ISO-like format.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also note that consensus does not mean that everything =
is accepted if a majority agrees. The charter can define the target and the=
raison d'etre of a format as well as a set of criteria (or an algo) to=
evaluate the relevance of requested changes. So it we say, for example, th=
at the raison d'=EAtre of GTFS is publishing data, any request to ease =
internal operation of agencies should not be accepted from the beginning wh=
ile request to improve fare calculation for trip planning would be evaluate=
d. (that's a little black and white, but I hope everybody gets it.)</di=
v>
<div><br></div><div>Steph</div><div><br>=A0<br></div><div><div><br></div>--=
<br><div>St=E9phane Guidoin</div><div><font color=3D"#666666">Director, Tr=
ansportation<br>Open North<br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#666666">514=
-862-0084</font></div>
<div><a href=3D"http://opennorth.ca" target=3D"_blank"><font color=3D"#6666=
66">http://opennorth.ca</font></a></div><div><font color=3D"#666666">Twitte=
r: @opennorth / @hoedic</font></div>
</div></div>
--001a11c2f670e0384604e1cb3e28--
More information about the open-transport
mailing list