Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
Locked
Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
 
|
Greetings all;
I would love to hear your thoughts about these proposed standards? I see Open Geospatial Consortium, linked data ideals and DOI, data and preservation and infrastructure as missing. But I do not know enough to know if those matter in this context. It would be good to hear from science, libraries, archives and so on these matters. I am concerned that data preservation, dissemination and management practices as seen in CODATA, GEOSS, GSDI, ICPRS, OGC and IASSIST and others. Also, that groups are not overlapping much. More so, these principles and standards might become the norm, and they may negatively influence data policy if not done well at the beginning. Sincerely Tracey -- Tracey P. Lauriault Post Doctoral Fellow Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
|
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
I am always skeptical when a market player comes with a standardization idea (even though it's more or less what we are doing currently with open511...) The exact boundaries of this open data standards initiative is unclear to me and it seems that this is more or less an empty shell for the moment. Here are my first thoughts as I am working on a standard that could fit in this initiative (at least I think) - Like Socrata, I feel that many standardization body are difficult to use in the context of small companies and small govs that evolve in the open data world. In order to submit a standard or say a word about a standard to the OGC for example, you need to be super platinium elite member which many small organizations won't pay. Added to that many other organizations excessively protect their standards, ask for money to provide the specs, etc. And from my understanding, few of those organizations publish their standard under an open license. There are tons of reasons why standardization organization are working this way and, as one told me once, it is what it takes to have a body that can handle the work needed to maintain the standard. I am not qualified enough to say if this is true, but I really feel that many of the existing standardization body do not match the needs of the players in the open data world. - All this comes to the question of governance. Does the idea of managing standards like open source software is sustainable? Even though I like the idea it seems pretty ambitious. One of the super power of open source is the ability to fork... but what's the idea of forking a standard? The example of open311 shows the need for a clear governance. I don't know the details, but it feels like Open Plans designed the standard but has not enough horse power currently to update it. So many people are asking for a v3 of the georeport but besides discussions on the mailing list, nothing is moving. This situation really put the standard at risk for the coming years. Just throwing the standard on github does not seem sufficient to solve the open311 situation for example. it is difficult to ignore the experience of standardization bodies. Is there an inbetween? - As it was mentionned, if they want to do things "differently", using an open licence would be important even though this is not mentionned for the moment. - Such an initiative should specify some general rules about the standards. For example that the geographical informatin should always use the OGC/GML notation, basic information should always use dublin core, etc. It seems that they are taking inspiration from many W3C features. I wish this kind of initiative could come closer to the w3c and profit from the w3c experience while being a little more accessible to small player (at least, w3c fee are not that expensive) Steph Le 12-11-15 16:18, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : Greetings all; |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
Link: http://open-data-standards.github.com/
The W3C has DCAT, which it is currently developing a future version http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ The Open Knowledge Foundation uses it in CKAN, and has provided valuable feedback for the standard. W3C also has among others: - a Data Cube vocabulary http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html - Asset Description Metadata Schema http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html Microsoft has OData, which Netflix and others use. It's a protocol for open data as opposed to a data standard. http://www.odata.org/ It's heading to become an OASIS standard, another good standards body. In terms of their "Why Not a Traditional Standards Organization?" W3 does the following: - Specs are written and stored in Mercurial (and published in HTML of course) - Issues with standards are created as issues in W3's tracker [1] are are debated and resolved as software issues are through its mailing lists and regular conference calls - W3 operates like an open source community Honestly, it's like Socrata never heard of W3C. 1. http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/2 On 2012-11-16, at 11:56 AM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote: > > I am always skeptical when a market player comes with a standardization idea (even though it's more or less what we are doing currently with open511...) > > The exact boundaries of this open data standards initiative is unclear to me and it seems that this is more or less an empty shell for the moment. > > Here are my first thoughts as I am working on a standard that could fit in this initiative (at least I think) > > - Like Socrata, I feel that many standardization body are difficult to use in the context of small companies and small govs that evolve in the open data world. In order to submit a standard or say a word about a standard to the OGC for example, you need to be super platinium elite member which many small organizations won't pay. Added to that many other organizations excessively protect their standards, ask for money to provide the specs, etc. And from my understanding, few of those organizations publish their standard under an open license. > > There are tons of reasons why standardization organization are working this way and, as one told me once, it is what it takes to have a body that can handle the work needed to maintain the standard. I am not qualified enough to say if this is true, but I really feel that many of the existing standardization body do not match the needs of the players in the open data world. > > - All this comes to the question of governance. Does the idea of managing standards like open source software is sustainable? Even though I like the idea it seems pretty ambitious. One of the super power of open source is the ability to fork... but what's the idea of forking a standard? > > The example of open311 shows the need for a clear governance. I don't know the details, but it feels like Open Plans designed the standard but has not enough horse power currently to update it. So many people are asking for a v3 of the georeport but besides discussions on the mailing list, nothing is moving. This situation really put the standard at risk for the coming years. > > Just throwing the standard on github does not seem sufficient to solve the open311 situation for example. it is difficult to ignore the experience of standardization bodies. Is there an inbetween? > > - As it was mentionned, if they want to do things "differently", using an open licence would be important even though this is not mentionned for the moment. > > - Such an initiative should specify some general rules about the standards. For example that the geographical informatin should always use the OGC/GML notation, basic information should always use dublin core, etc. > > It seems that they are taking inspiration from many W3C features. I wish this kind of initiative could come closer to the w3c and profit from the w3c experience while being a little more accessible to small player (at least, w3c fee are not that expensive) > > Steph > > Le 12-11-15 16:18, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : >> Greetings all; >> >> I would love to hear your thoughts about these proposed standards? >> >> I see Open Geospatial Consortium, linked data ideals and DOI, data and preservation and infrastructure as missing. But I do not know enough to know if those matter in this context. >> >> It would be good to hear from science, libraries, archives and so on these matters. I am concerned that data preservation, dissemination and management practices as seen in CODATA, GEOSS, GSDI, ICPRS, OGC and IASSIST and others. Also, that groups are not overlapping much. More so, these principles and standards might become the norm, and they may negatively influence data policy if not done well at the beginning. >> >> Sincerely >> Tracey >> >> -- >> Tracey P. Lauriault >> Post Doctoral Fellow >> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre >> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault >> http://datalibre.ca/ >> 613-234-2805 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
Looking into things a bit more, it seems that they (wisely!) are using DCAT in their data model: http://open-data-standards.github.com/data-catalog-schema/ The "Differences from DCAT" section of that page follow the changes that are coming up in DCAT itself, which is great.
This initiative might be sane after all. I just find it a little surprising that they fail to mention W3 at all in their introduction, given that they're both using its standards and following much of its process!
On 2012-11-16, at 12:15 PM, James McKinney wrote:
|
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
I was about to click on "send" on a
mailing saying that they are using DCAT :)
The question is why not doing this inside w3c which might be the best-suited organization for this. Steph Le 12-11-16 12:44, James McKinney a écrit : Looking into things a bit more, it seems that they (wisely!) are using DCAT in their data model: http://open-data-standards.github.com/data-catalog-schema/ The "Differences from DCAT" section of that page follow the changes that are coming up in DCAT itself, which is great. |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
[Forwarding Rufus's reply to open-government list: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/2012-November/002478.html ]
Hi all, Work on DCAT [1] at the W3C and the Data Catalog Interoperability Protocol [2] on the data-catalogs mailing list [3] has been ongoing for some time (at the OKF we've had input into the former and helped develop the latter stimulated by work on CKAN - the open source data platform we've help develop). More generally we and others have been working on a set of open data ‘protocols’ to make open data tools and services to talk to each other [5]. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ [2]: http://spec.datacatalogs.org/ [3]: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/data-catalogs [4]: http://www.dataprotocols.org/ Given the existing work we're unclear what Socrata's new site adds, and we wonder whether it could perhaps to have been more useful to contribute to what was already there. We in fact spoke with Socrata last week about both DCIP and about Open Data Protocols (and offering to work with them in this area) so we're a bit surprised to see this announcement as it appears to directly duplicate this existing work - just on their website. As interoperability and some common standards are definitely important to the open data and open government data community, our hope is that going forward is that a broad range of stakeholders in this area can work together. Hopefully in future this will include communicating sensibly and not replicating existing work unnecessarily! Regards, Rufus On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Stéphane Guidoin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Jonathan Gray | @jwyg Support our work: okfn.org/support |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
Thanks for that, Jonathan. The lack of identifying information on Socrata's website made it unclear whether or not they were working with OKF. If they're not, then it seems like, rather than pursuing a standard, they're pursuing "our standard." I appreciate the work OKF is doing, even when W3C moves more slowly than ideal. If Socrata wants to contribute, it should lend more manpower to existing efforts.
On 2012-11-16, at 1:59 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote: [Forwarding Rufus's reply to open-government list: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/2012-November/002478.html ] |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
I agree with James.
At the very least, Socrata should make explicit how it sees the work it (appears) to be doing relates to activities in the W3C and OKF, and how it plans on communicating its work with these groups, for example, will I be seeing them soon in http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison As we have seen in HTML5 and WHATWG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#History) external groups can be very useful in expediting change in slower moving organizations like the W3C (an ex W3C rep speaking here...). That said, clearly, these are difference situations: WHATWG never claimed it was becoming a de facto standards organization. -Glen On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks for that, Jonathan. The lack of identifying information on Socrata's > website made it unclear whether or not they were working with OKF. If > they're not, then it seems like, rather than pursuing a standard, they're > pursuing "our standard." I appreciate the work OKF is doing, even when W3C > moves more slowly than ideal. If Socrata wants to contribute, it should lend > more manpower to existing efforts. > > > On 2012-11-16, at 1:59 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > [Forwarding Rufus's reply to open-government list: > http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/2012-November/002478.html ] > > Hi all, > > Work on DCAT [1] at the W3C and the Data Catalog Interoperability > Protocol [2] on the data-catalogs mailing list [3] has been ongoing > for some time (at the OKF we've had input into the former and helped > develop the latter stimulated by work on CKAN - the open source data > platform we've help develop). More generally we and others have been > working on a set of open data ‘protocols’ to make open data tools and > services to talk to each other [5]. > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ > [2]: http://spec.datacatalogs.org/ > [3]: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/data-catalogs > [4]: http://www.dataprotocols.org/ > > Given the existing work we're unclear what Socrata's new site adds, > and we wonder whether it could perhaps to have been more useful to > contribute to what was already there. > > We in fact spoke with Socrata last week about both DCIP and about Open > Data Protocols (and offering to work with them in this area) so we're > a bit surprised to see this announcement as it appears to directly > duplicate this existing work - just on their website. > > As interoperability and some common standards are definitely important > to the open data and open government data community, our hope is that > going forward is that a broad range of stakeholders in this area can > work together. Hopefully in future this will include communicating > sensibly and not replicating existing work unnecessarily! > > Regards, > > Rufus > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Stéphane Guidoin > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I was about to click on "send" on a mailing saying that they are using >> DCAT :) >> >> The question is why not doing this inside w3c which might be the >> best-suited organization for this. >> >> Steph >> >> Le 12-11-16 12:44, James McKinney a écrit : >> >> Looking into things a bit more, it seems that they (wisely!) are using >> DCAT in their data model: >> http://open-data-standards.github.com/data-catalog-schema/ The "Differences >> from DCAT" section of that page follow the changes that are coming up in >> DCAT itself, which is great. >> >> This initiative might be sane after all. I just find it a little >> surprising that they fail to mention W3 at all in their introduction, given >> that they're both using its standards and following much of its process! >> >> On 2012-11-16, at 12:15 PM, James McKinney wrote: >> >> Link: http://open-data-standards.github.com/ >> >> The W3C has DCAT, which it is currently developing a future version >> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ The Open Knowledge Foundation uses it in >> CKAN, and has provided valuable feedback for the standard. W3C also has >> among others: >> >> - a Data Cube vocabulary >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html >> - Asset Description Metadata Schema >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html >> >> Microsoft has OData, which Netflix and others use. It's a protocol for >> open data as opposed to a data standard. http://www.odata.org/ It's heading >> to become an OASIS standard, another good standards body. >> >> In terms of their "Why Not a Traditional Standards Organization?" W3 does >> the following: >> >> - Specs are written and stored in Mercurial (and published in HTML of >> course) >> - Issues with standards are created as issues in W3's tracker [1] are are >> debated and resolved as software issues are through its mailing lists and >> regular conference calls >> - W3 operates like an open source community >> >> Honestly, it's like Socrata never heard of W3C. >> >> 1. http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/2 >> >> On 2012-11-16, at 11:56 AM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote: >> >> >> I am always skeptical when a market player comes with a standardization >> idea (even though it's more or less what we are doing currently with >> open511...) >> >> >> The exact boundaries of this open data standards initiative is unclear to >> me and it seems that this is more or less an empty shell for the moment. >> >> >> Here are my first thoughts as I am working on a standard that could fit in >> this initiative (at least I think) >> >> >> - Like Socrata, I feel that many standardization body are difficult to use >> in the context of small companies and small govs that evolve in the open >> data world. In order to submit a standard or say a word about a standard to >> the OGC for example, you need to be super platinium elite member which many >> small organizations won't pay. Added to that many other organizations >> excessively protect their standards, ask for money to provide the specs, >> etc. And from my understanding, few of those organizations publish their >> standard under an open license. >> >> >> There are tons of reasons why standardization organization are working >> this way and, as one told me once, it is what it takes to have a body that >> can handle the work needed to maintain the standard. I am not qualified >> enough to say if this is true, but I really feel that many of the existing >> standardization body do not match the needs of the players in the open data >> world. >> >> >> - All this comes to the question of governance. Does the idea of managing >> standards like open source software is sustainable? Even though I like the >> idea it seems pretty ambitious. One of the super power of open source is the >> ability to fork... but what's the idea of forking a standard? >> >> >> The example of open311 shows the need for a clear governance. I don't know >> the details, but it feels like Open Plans designed the standard but has not >> enough horse power currently to update it. So many people are asking for a >> v3 of the georeport but besides discussions on the mailing list, nothing is >> moving. This situation really put the standard at risk for the coming years. >> >> >> Just throwing the standard on github does not seem sufficient to solve the >> open311 situation for example. it is difficult to ignore the experience of >> standardization bodies. Is there an inbetween? >> >> >> - As it was mentionned, if they want to do things "differently", using an >> open licence would be important even though this is not mentionned for the >> moment. >> >> >> - Such an initiative should specify some general rules about the >> standards. For example that the geographical informatin should always use >> the OGC/GML notation, basic information should always use dublin core, etc. >> >> >> It seems that they are taking inspiration from many W3C features. I wish >> this kind of initiative could come closer to the w3c and profit from the w3c >> experience while being a little more accessible to small player (at least, >> w3c fee are not that expensive) >> >> >> Steph >> >> >> Le 12-11-15 16:18, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : >> >> Greetings all; >> >> >> I would love to hear your thoughts about these proposed standards? >> >> >> I see Open Geospatial Consortium, linked data ideals and DOI, data and >> preservation and infrastructure as missing. But I do not know enough to >> know if those matter in this context. >> >> >> It would be good to hear from science, libraries, archives and so on these >> matters. I am concerned that data preservation, dissemination and >> management practices as seen in CODATA, GEOSS, GSDI, ICPRS, OGC and IASSIST >> and others. Also, that groups are not overlapping much. More so, these >> principles and standards might become the norm, and they may negatively >> influence data policy if not done well at the beginning. >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> Tracey >> >> >> -- >> >> Tracey P. Lauriault >> >> Post Doctoral Fellow >> >> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre >> >> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault >> >> http://datalibre.ca/ >> >> 613-234-2805 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> >> >> [hidden email] >> >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> >> [hidden email] >> >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > -- > Jonathan Gray | @jwyg > The Open Knowledge Foundation | @okfn > Support our work: okfn.org/support > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - |
Re: Socrata Open Data Standards - Your Thoughts?
|
|
We (Open North) did a little (ok, pretty long) blog post about this question
http://blog.opennorth.ca/2012/11/22/open-data-standards/ (French version : http://blogue.nordouvert.ca/2012/11/22/les-donnees-ouvertes/) Since we are working on a standard (Open511), all these standardization questions are important to us. We borrowed some elements discussed here and on some other mailing list. Steph Le 12-11-16 14:44, Glen Newton a écrit : > I agree with James. > > At the very least, Socrata should make explicit how it sees the work > it (appears) to be doing relates to activities in the W3C and OKF, and > how it plans on communicating its work with these groups, for example, > will I be seeing them soon in http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison > > As we have seen in HTML5 and WHATWG > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#History) external groups can be > very useful in expediting change in slower moving organizations like > the W3C (an ex W3C rep speaking here...). That said, clearly, these > are difference situations: WHATWG never claimed it was becoming a de > facto standards organization. > > -Glen > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Thanks for that, Jonathan. The lack of identifying information on Socrata's >> website made it unclear whether or not they were working with OKF. If >> they're not, then it seems like, rather than pursuing a standard, they're >> pursuing "our standard." I appreciate the work OKF is doing, even when W3C >> moves more slowly than ideal. If Socrata wants to contribute, it should lend >> more manpower to existing efforts. >> >> >> On 2012-11-16, at 1:59 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote: >> >> [Forwarding Rufus's reply to open-government list: >> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/2012-November/002478.html ] >> >> Hi all, >> >> Work on DCAT [1] at the W3C and the Data Catalog Interoperability >> Protocol [2] on the data-catalogs mailing list [3] has been ongoing >> for some time (at the OKF we've had input into the former and helped >> develop the latter stimulated by work on CKAN - the open source data >> platform we've help develop). More generally we and others have been >> working on a set of open data ‘protocols’ to make open data tools and >> services to talk to each other [5]. >> >> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ >> [2]: http://spec.datacatalogs.org/ >> [3]: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/data-catalogs >> [4]: http://www.dataprotocols.org/ >> >> Given the existing work we're unclear what Socrata's new site adds, >> and we wonder whether it could perhaps to have been more useful to >> contribute to what was already there. >> >> We in fact spoke with Socrata last week about both DCIP and about Open >> Data Protocols (and offering to work with them in this area) so we're >> a bit surprised to see this announcement as it appears to directly >> duplicate this existing work - just on their website. >> >> As interoperability and some common standards are definitely important >> to the open data and open government data community, our hope is that >> going forward is that a broad range of stakeholders in this area can >> work together. Hopefully in future this will include communicating >> sensibly and not replicating existing work unnecessarily! >> >> Regards, >> >> Rufus >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Stéphane Guidoin >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> I was about to click on "send" on a mailing saying that they are using >>> DCAT :) >>> >>> The question is why not doing this inside w3c which might be the >>> best-suited organization for this. >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> Le 12-11-16 12:44, James McKinney a écrit : >>> >>> Looking into things a bit more, it seems that they (wisely!) are using >>> DCAT in their data model: >>> http://open-data-standards.github.com/data-catalog-schema/ The "Differences >>> from DCAT" section of that page follow the changes that are coming up in >>> DCAT itself, which is great. >>> >>> This initiative might be sane after all. I just find it a little >>> surprising that they fail to mention W3 at all in their introduction, given >>> that they're both using its standards and following much of its process! >>> >>> On 2012-11-16, at 12:15 PM, James McKinney wrote: >>> >>> Link: http://open-data-standards.github.com/ >>> >>> The W3C has DCAT, which it is currently developing a future version >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ The Open Knowledge Foundation uses it in >>> CKAN, and has provided valuable feedback for the standard. W3C also has >>> among others: >>> >>> - a Data Cube vocabulary >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html >>> - Asset Description Metadata Schema >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html >>> >>> Microsoft has OData, which Netflix and others use. It's a protocol for >>> open data as opposed to a data standard. http://www.odata.org/ It's heading >>> to become an OASIS standard, another good standards body. >>> >>> In terms of their "Why Not a Traditional Standards Organization?" W3 does >>> the following: >>> >>> - Specs are written and stored in Mercurial (and published in HTML of >>> course) >>> - Issues with standards are created as issues in W3's tracker [1] are are >>> debated and resolved as software issues are through its mailing lists and >>> regular conference calls >>> - W3 operates like an open source community >>> >>> Honestly, it's like Socrata never heard of W3C. >>> >>> 1. http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/2 >>> >>> On 2012-11-16, at 11:56 AM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am always skeptical when a market player comes with a standardization >>> idea (even though it's more or less what we are doing currently with >>> open511...) >>> >>> >>> The exact boundaries of this open data standards initiative is unclear to >>> me and it seems that this is more or less an empty shell for the moment. >>> >>> >>> Here are my first thoughts as I am working on a standard that could fit in >>> this initiative (at least I think) >>> >>> >>> - Like Socrata, I feel that many standardization body are difficult to use >>> in the context of small companies and small govs that evolve in the open >>> data world. In order to submit a standard or say a word about a standard to >>> the OGC for example, you need to be super platinium elite member which many >>> small organizations won't pay. Added to that many other organizations >>> excessively protect their standards, ask for money to provide the specs, >>> etc. And from my understanding, few of those organizations publish their >>> standard under an open license. >>> >>> >>> There are tons of reasons why standardization organization are working >>> this way and, as one told me once, it is what it takes to have a body that >>> can handle the work needed to maintain the standard. I am not qualified >>> enough to say if this is true, but I really feel that many of the existing >>> standardization body do not match the needs of the players in the open data >>> world. >>> >>> >>> - All this comes to the question of governance. Does the idea of managing >>> standards like open source software is sustainable? Even though I like the >>> idea it seems pretty ambitious. One of the super power of open source is the >>> ability to fork... but what's the idea of forking a standard? >>> >>> >>> The example of open311 shows the need for a clear governance. I don't know >>> the details, but it feels like Open Plans designed the standard but has not >>> enough horse power currently to update it. So many people are asking for a >>> v3 of the georeport but besides discussions on the mailing list, nothing is >>> moving. This situation really put the standard at risk for the coming years. >>> >>> >>> Just throwing the standard on github does not seem sufficient to solve the >>> open311 situation for example. it is difficult to ignore the experience of >>> standardization bodies. Is there an inbetween? >>> >>> >>> - As it was mentionned, if they want to do things "differently", using an >>> open licence would be important even though this is not mentionned for the >>> moment. >>> >>> >>> - Such an initiative should specify some general rules about the >>> standards. For example that the geographical informatin should always use >>> the OGC/GML notation, basic information should always use dublin core, etc. >>> >>> >>> It seems that they are taking inspiration from many W3C features. I wish >>> this kind of initiative could come closer to the w3c and profit from the w3c >>> experience while being a little more accessible to small player (at least, >>> w3c fee are not that expensive) >>> >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> >>> Le 12-11-15 16:18, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : >>> >>> Greetings all; >>> >>> >>> I would love to hear your thoughts about these proposed standards? >>> >>> >>> I see Open Geospatial Consortium, linked data ideals and DOI, data and >>> preservation and infrastructure as missing. But I do not know enough to >>> know if those matter in this context. >>> >>> >>> It would be good to hear from science, libraries, archives and so on these >>> matters. I am concerned that data preservation, dissemination and >>> management practices as seen in CODATA, GEOSS, GSDI, ICPRS, OGC and IASSIST >>> and others. Also, that groups are not overlapping much. More so, these >>> principles and standards might become the norm, and they may negatively >>> influence data policy if not done well at the beginning. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely >>> >>> Tracey >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Tracey P. Lauriault >>> >>> Post Doctoral Fellow >>> >>> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre >>> >>> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault >>> >>> http://datalibre.ca/ >>> >>> 613-234-2805 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> >>> >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Gray | @jwyg >> The Open Knowledge Foundation | @okfn >> Support our work: okfn.org/support >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |