The case for context in defining Open Data

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Wow!  This is great.

Regarding open data definitions OKNF 10 and the 8 principles miss many of parameters such as the following which are normalized practices in the natural and social sciences:

• Data quality (accuracy, reliability, integrity, Identity, authenticity, completeness, semantics, sound methodology, etc.)
• Description (metadata - provenance, dates, versions, forms, attributes, collection methodologies, quality parameters, classification explanations, authors, and so on) - this helps with fit for use decisions, provides trust in the data, and enables discoverability.
• Interoperability (legal, technical, semantic, policy) - where laws, technologies, classifications and policies enable use and reuse
  
• Standards (metadata, dissemination, services, interoperability, etc.)
  
• Preservation (archiving, systems to archive), we have the data today but we also want them tomorrow

With regards to open data and context.  It is true that context matters in terms of the release of data, for example, health data are not released because of privacy issues, census data are aggregated for the same reason, broadcasting the location of endangered species may lead to their harvesting, mapping bear dens may invite unwanted tourists, sharing sacred aboriginal sites may lead to them being de-consecrated, archeological sites looted and so on.  Ted, I think, one of the things you are grappling with is the decision making process on how to release sensitive data. 

GeoConnections has produced a report to address issues pertaining to the release of sensitive data.  The sensitive data are defined as follows:

1. Legislation/Policies/Permits – the data is identified by legislation as requiring safeguarding. The most prominent legislation in this regard is the federal Privacy Act – safeguarding the data is required if an individual can be identified, either directly by georeferenced information (such as the geo-coordinates of an address) or indirectly through the amalgamation of geospatial data and related attributes;
2. Confidentiality – the data is considered confidential by an organization or its use can be economically detrimental to a commercial interest;
3. Natural Resource Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an environmentally significant site or resource;
4. Cultural Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an culturally significant site or resource; or
5. Safety and Security – the information can be used to endanger public health and safety.
   

The principles for the release of sensitive data are as follows:

1. Unless the dataset is classified as sensitive it can be provided free of restrictions;
2. Information can not be considered sensitive if it is readily available through other sources or if it is not unique;
3. The Data Custodian of the information is the only agency that can determine whether an environmental geospatial dataset is to be classified as sensitive;
4. Data Consumers of sensitive environmental geospatial datasets must honour the restrictions accompanying the information in the form of an agreement, license and/or metadata; and
5. Organizations should document and openly publish their process, criteria and decisions.

The info above is from the  Best practices for sharing sensitive environmental geospatial data which on page 27, provides an excellent Sensitivity Assessment Procedure decision making tree that I think all of us interested in open data should take into consideration, and data creators especially, as the decisions on what to release and what not to release to the public needs to be more transparent and objective.  I think a more general decision making tree needs to be developed that will also include contractual obligations and IP would be most helpful.  I hope you will take the time to read it.  Other excellent operational policy primers related to data are available here - http://geoconnections.nrcan.gc.ca/18.

Heather, CIPPIC has mapped open access licenses in this report - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/Open_License_Comparison_Report-v2-10Feb2011.pdf, and here - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/CIPPIC-Ottawa_License_Report-2010-11-15.pdf.  This was work I inspired some time ago when there were only 4 open data cities, and I had significant concerns about the proliferation of not so open licences.  Some discussions related to these can be found here https://traceyplauriault.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/changecamp-ottawa-2010-open-data-terms-of-use-session/.  Might be good to check with Kent and David at CIPPIC to ensure you are not reinventing any wheels.

The next item Ted, that I think you are addressing is the clash between local and occupancy, land ownership, treaty rights and unfair/uneven exploration and exploitation combined with the maverick like tendencies of surveyors and geologists.  These are issues beyond the scope of open data.

However, where open data and these issues do intersect is local and traditional knowledge (LTK) and IP, and western legal frameworks of IP protecting individual rights but not collective rights.  The Lab where I work is doing some work here, with CIPPIC and Teressa Scassa (https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Mapping+the+Legal+and+Policy+Boundaries+of+Digital+Cartography), and we are in the process of developing a LTK licence that takes into consideration OCAP principals (ownership, control, access, and possession) of aboriginal information (http://www.rhs-ers.ca/node/2), combined with the sensitive info issues discussed above, and based on a number findings over the years in our mapping work in the north.  We have heard loud and clear from Inuit, that they want control over their information, their local and traditional knowledge, and we are trying to find ways to incorporate those concerns into a creative commons like license.  In addition we hope to build capacity in these areas and ensure that government and the private sector follow these principles, adhere to the licences and that aboriginal people know and are able to enforce their rights.

Sorry for being long winded.  Your post got a conversation going and that is a good thing and I hope some of what is in this response proves helpful.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:

I want to concede that "to achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" (my words)

is a completely subjective statement, and so ineligible to be part of any formal definition. 

I acknowledge that my post emphasized definitions more than was warranted.

This discussion has helped clarify for me that one reason for my post was a sense

that the close bond between the license/definition writers and the movement itself has led to

less discussion of when to open or not open data. Take this quote from http://okfn.org/opendata/

under the heading "How to open data" (bold in original):

"Address common fears and misunderstandings. This is especially important if you are working with or within large institutions such as government. When opening up data you will encounter plenty of questions and fears. It is important to (a) identify the most important ones and (b) address them at as early a stage as possible."

Compare that to the following from http://opendefinition.org/about/  (both quotes by the same organization)

"The definition sets forth principles by which to judge whether a knowledge license is open, it does not seek to provide or recommend specific licenses."

So while the definition writers do not recommend specific licenses, on another page they also want to remind their advocates how to address common fears and misunderstandings about the same licenses. I think OKF has gone to sufficient lengths to separate these two sections of their site so they reach the appropriate audience; I am not crying hypocrisy. But with direct advocacy on one side, and objective licenses on the other, where does substantive discussion fit in about when is it recommended to apply these licenses?  I haven't heard enough of that discussion and if nothing else, I think cases like the Weenusk First Nation should encourage more of that discussion. 

Maybe there should be an openmotivation.org with a decision tree helping governments and organizations decide how to make use of open data (if at all). 

This could help them decide what goals are achievable, and what contexts can help direct their efforts most effectively.

I will make an example of what I mean by this and post it soon.

Thanks again everyone who read the blog and posted comments.

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Michael Mulley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given that there is an underlying bias that open is desirable,

> shouldn't there be a discussion about what conditions make

> openness desirable or not. 

Oh, for sure!

We've had a bunch of discussions here before about whether specific examples of released data were good or bad, and these are usually very interesting. An attempt to formulate a broader list of conditions that might make openness undesirable could likewise be interesting.

My & others' objections, I think, were to muddying definitional waters, and to the Weenusk example, which seems to me not a question of whether data should be open but whether it should've been collected in the first place (and then, if one answers no to this question, whether it should be kept private -- its licensing doesn't seem like the relevant question here).

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

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

[Ted Strauss]

Thanks James for your feedback and suggestions.

I will look into those privacy guidelines. 

If any specific links come to mind, please send them my way.

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

Maybe there should be an openmotivation.org with a decision tree helping governments and organizations decide how to make use of open data (if at all). 

This could help them decide what goals are achievable, and what contexts can help direct their efforts most effectively.

I will make an example of what I mean by this and post it soon.

That has potential.

In my experience, governments are in the vast majority of cases very good at not releasing data that shouldn't be released. They are in most cases very conservative with respect to what they publish. Hence the OKF emphasis on how to get govts to release data, as opposed to instructing govts on what data not to release. ATI requests are regularly refused because they contain private data, e.g. bicycle accidents, even if the requester isn't asking for any identifying personal info and just wants info on the type, location and severity of each collision.

Govts still make mistakes and release data that should be kept private, usually accidentally. The federal and provincial Privacy Commissioners have come up with models, processes, etc. for how to manage and release data. These guidelines apply to data generally as well as they do to open data specifically. I'd look into what they have done before investing too much time into re-inventing the wheel with a potential openmotivation.org

James

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Ted Strauss]

Tracey, 

Thank you for this. I'm speechless.

I think I should just take down my blog post and replace it with "Tracey's open data tips, part 1" and copy-paste your email.

I will study your reply and  all these links.

Thanks

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wow!  This is great.

Regarding open data definitions OKNF 10 and the 8 principles miss many of parameters such as the following which are normalized practices in the natural and social sciences:

• Data quality (accuracy, reliability, integrity, Identity, authenticity, completeness, semantics, sound methodology, etc.)
• Description (metadata - provenance, dates, versions, forms, attributes, collection methodologies, quality parameters, classification explanations, authors, and so on) - this helps with fit for use decisions, provides trust in the data, and enables discoverability.
• Interoperability (legal, technical, semantic, policy) - where laws, technologies, classifications and policies enable use and reuse
  
• Standards (metadata, dissemination, services, interoperability, etc.)
  
• Preservation (archiving, systems to archive), we have the data today but we also want them tomorrow

With regards to open data and context.  It is true that context matters in terms of the release of data, for example, health data are not released because of privacy issues, census data are aggregated for the same reason, broadcasting the location of endangered species may lead to their harvesting, mapping bear dens may invite unwanted tourists, sharing sacred aboriginal sites may lead to them being de-consecrated, archeological sites looted and so on.  Ted, I think, one of the things you are grappling with is the decision making process on how to release sensitive data. 

GeoConnections has produced a report to address issues pertaining to the release of sensitive data.  The sensitive data are defined as follows:

1. Legislation/Policies/Permits – the data is identified by legislation as requiring safeguarding. The most prominent legislation in this regard is the federal Privacy Act – safeguarding the data is required if an individual can be identified, either directly by georeferenced information (such as the geo-coordinates of an address) or indirectly through the amalgamation of geospatial data and related attributes;
2. Confidentiality – the data is considered confidential by an organization or its use can be economically detrimental to a commercial interest;
3. Natural Resource Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an environmentally significant site or resource;
4. Cultural Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an culturally significant site or resource; or
5. Safety and Security – the information can be used to endanger public health and safety.
   

The principles for the release of sensitive data are as follows:

1. Unless the dataset is classified as sensitive it can be provided free of restrictions;
2. Information can not be considered sensitive if it is readily available through other sources or if it is not unique;
3. The Data Custodian of the information is the only agency that can determine whether an environmental geospatial dataset is to be classified as sensitive;
4. Data Consumers of sensitive environmental geospatial datasets must honour the restrictions accompanying the information in the form of an agreement, license and/or metadata; and
5. Organizations should document and openly publish their process, criteria and decisions.

The info above is from the  Best practices for sharing sensitive environmental geospatial data which on page 27, provides an excellent Sensitivity Assessment Procedure decision making tree that I think all of us interested in open data should take into consideration, and data creators especially, as the decisions on what to release and what not to release to the public needs to be more transparent and objective.  I think a more general decision making tree needs to be developed that will also include contractual obligations and IP would be most helpful.  I hope you will take the time to read it.  Other excellent operational policy primers related to data are available here - http://geoconnections.nrcan.gc.ca/18.

Heather, CIPPIC has mapped open access licenses in this report - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/Open_License_Comparison_Report-v2-10Feb2011.pdf, and here - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/CIPPIC-Ottawa_License_Report-2010-11-15.pdf.  This was work I inspired some time ago when there were only 4 open data cities, and I had significant concerns about the proliferation of not so open licences.  Some discussions related to these can be found here https://traceyplauriault.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/changecamp-ottawa-2010-open-data-terms-of-use-session/.  Might be good to check with Kent and David at CIPPIC to ensure you are not reinventing any wheels.

The next item Ted, that I think you are addressing is the clash between local and occupancy, land ownership, treaty rights and unfair/uneven exploration and exploitation combined with the maverick like tendencies of surveyors and geologists.  These are issues beyond the scope of open data.

However, where open data and these issues do intersect is local and traditional knowledge (LTK) and IP, and western legal frameworks of IP protecting individual rights but not collective rights.  The Lab where I work is doing some work here, with CIPPIC and Teressa Scassa (https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Mapping+the+Legal+and+Policy+Boundaries+of+Digital+Cartography), and we are in the process of developing a LTK licence that takes into consideration OCAP principals (ownership, control, access, and possession) of aboriginal information (http://www.rhs-ers.ca/node/2), combined with the sensitive info issues discussed above, and based on a number findings over the years in our mapping work in the north.  We have heard loud and clear from Inuit, that they want control over their information, their local and traditional knowledge, and we are trying to find ways to incorporate those concerns into a creative commons like license.  In addition we hope to build capacity in these areas and ensure that government and the private sector follow these principles, adhere to the licences and that aboriginal people know and are able to enforce their rights.

Sorry for being long winded.  Your post got a conversation going and that is a good thing and I hope some of what is in this response proves helpful.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:

I want to concede that "to achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" (my words)

is a completely subjective statement, and so ineligible to be part of any formal definition. 

I acknowledge that my post emphasized definitions more than was warranted.

This discussion has helped clarify for me that one reason for my post was a sense

that the close bond between the license/definition writers and the movement itself has led to

less discussion of when to open or not open data. Take this quote from http://okfn.org/opendata/

under the heading "How to open data" (bold in original):

"Address common fears and misunderstandings. This is especially important if you are working with or within large institutions such as government. When opening up data you will encounter plenty of questions and fears. It is important to (a) identify the most important ones and (b) address them at as early a stage as possible."

Compare that to the following from http://opendefinition.org/about/  (both quotes by the same organization)

"The definition sets forth principles by which to judge whether a knowledge license is open, it does not seek to provide or recommend specific licenses."

So while the definition writers do not recommend specific licenses, on another page they also want to remind their advocates how to address common fears and misunderstandings about the same licenses. I think OKF has gone to sufficient lengths to separate these two sections of their site so they reach the appropriate audience; I am not crying hypocrisy. But with direct advocacy on one side, and objective licenses on the other, where does substantive discussion fit in about when is it recommended to apply these licenses?  I haven't heard enough of that discussion and if nothing else, I think cases like the Weenusk First Nation should encourage more of that discussion. 

Maybe there should be an openmotivation.org with a decision tree helping governments and organizations decide how to make use of open data (if at all). 

This could help them decide what goals are achievable, and what contexts can help direct their efforts most effectively.

I will make an example of what I mean by this and post it soon.

Thanks again everyone who read the blog and posted comments.

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Michael Mulley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given that there is an underlying bias that open is desirable,

> shouldn't there be a discussion about what conditions make

> openness desirable or not. 

Oh, for sure!

We've had a bunch of discussions here before about whether specific examples of released data were good or bad, and these are usually very interesting. An attempt to formulate a broader list of conditions that might make openness undesirable could likewise be interesting.

My & others' objections, I think, were to muddying definitional waters, and to the Weenusk example, which seems to me not a question of whether data should be open but whether it should've been collected in the first place (and then, if one answers no to this question, whether it should be kept private -- its licensing doesn't seem like the relevant question here).

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Tracey P. Lauriault

Post Doctoral Fellow

Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre

https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault

http://datalibre.ca/
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">613-234-2805
 

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Ted;
btw Trudat is a great name!

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tracey, 

Thank you for this. I'm speechless.

I think I should just take down my blog post and replace it with "Tracey's open data tips, part 1" and copy-paste your email.

I will study your reply and  all these links.

Thanks

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wow!  This is great.

Regarding open data definitions OKNF 10 and the 8 principles miss many of parameters such as the following which are normalized practices in the natural and social sciences:

• Data quality (accuracy, reliability, integrity, Identity, authenticity, completeness, semantics, sound methodology, etc.)
• Description (metadata - provenance, dates, versions, forms, attributes, collection methodologies, quality parameters, classification explanations, authors, and so on) - this helps with fit for use decisions, provides trust in the data, and enables discoverability.
• Interoperability (legal, technical, semantic, policy) - where laws, technologies, classifications and policies enable use and reuse
  
• Standards (metadata, dissemination, services, interoperability, etc.)
  
• Preservation (archiving, systems to archive), we have the data today but we also want them tomorrow

With regards to open data and context.  It is true that context matters in terms of the release of data, for example, health data are not released because of privacy issues, census data are aggregated for the same reason, broadcasting the location of endangered species may lead to their harvesting, mapping bear dens may invite unwanted tourists, sharing sacred aboriginal sites may lead to them being de-consecrated, archeological sites looted and so on.  Ted, I think, one of the things you are grappling with is the decision making process on how to release sensitive data. 

GeoConnections has produced a report to address issues pertaining to the release of sensitive data.  The sensitive data are defined as follows:

1. Legislation/Policies/Permits – the data is identified by legislation as requiring safeguarding. The most prominent legislation in this regard is the federal Privacy Act – safeguarding the data is required if an individual can be identified, either directly by georeferenced information (such as the geo-coordinates of an address) or indirectly through the amalgamation of geospatial data and related attributes;
2. Confidentiality – the data is considered confidential by an organization or its use can be economically detrimental to a commercial interest;
3. Natural Resource Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an environmentally significant site or resource;
4. Cultural Protection – the use of the information can result in the degradation of an culturally significant site or resource; or
5. Safety and Security – the information can be used to endanger public health and safety.
   

The principles for the release of sensitive data are as follows:

1. Unless the dataset is classified as sensitive it can be provided free of restrictions;
2. Information can not be considered sensitive if it is readily available through other sources or if it is not unique;
3. The Data Custodian of the information is the only agency that can determine whether an environmental geospatial dataset is to be classified as sensitive;
4. Data Consumers of sensitive environmental geospatial datasets must honour the restrictions accompanying the information in the form of an agreement, license and/or metadata; and
5. Organizations should document and openly publish their process, criteria and decisions.

The info above is from the  Best practices for sharing sensitive environmental geospatial data which on page 27, provides an excellent Sensitivity Assessment Procedure decision making tree that I think all of us interested in open data should take into consideration, and data creators especially, as the decisions on what to release and what not to release to the public needs to be more transparent and objective.  I think a more general decision making tree needs to be developed that will also include contractual obligations and IP would be most helpful.  I hope you will take the time to read it.  Other excellent operational policy primers related to data are available here - http://geoconnections.nrcan.gc.ca/18.

Heather, CIPPIC has mapped open access licenses in this report - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/Open_License_Comparison_Report-v2-10Feb2011.pdf, and here - http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/CIPPIC-Ottawa_License_Report-2010-11-15.pdf.  This was work I inspired some time ago when there were only 4 open data cities, and I had significant concerns about the proliferation of not so open licences.  Some discussions related to these can be found here https://traceyplauriault.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/changecamp-ottawa-2010-open-data-terms-of-use-session/.  Might be good to check with Kent and David at CIPPIC to ensure you are not reinventing any wheels.

The next item Ted, that I think you are addressing is the clash between local and occupancy, land ownership, treaty rights and unfair/uneven exploration and exploitation combined with the maverick like tendencies of surveyors and geologists.  These are issues beyond the scope of open data.

However, where open data and these issues do intersect is local and traditional knowledge (LTK) and IP, and western legal frameworks of IP protecting individual rights but not collective rights.  The Lab where I work is doing some work here, with CIPPIC and Teressa Scassa (https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Mapping+the+Legal+and+Policy+Boundaries+of+Digital+Cartography), and we are in the process of developing a LTK licence that takes into consideration OCAP principals (ownership, control, access, and possession) of aboriginal information (http://www.rhs-ers.ca/node/2), combined with the sensitive info issues discussed above, and based on a number findings over the years in our mapping work in the north.  We have heard loud and clear from Inuit, that they want control over their information, their local and traditional knowledge, and we are trying to find ways to incorporate those concerns into a creative commons like license.  In addition we hope to build capacity in these areas and ensure that government and the private sector follow these principles, adhere to the licences and that aboriginal people know and are able to enforce their rights.

Sorry for being long winded.  Your post got a conversation going and that is a good thing and I hope some of what is in this response proves helpful.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:

I want to concede that "to achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" (my words)

is a completely subjective statement, and so ineligible to be part of any formal definition. 

I acknowledge that my post emphasized definitions more than was warranted.

This discussion has helped clarify for me that one reason for my post was a sense

that the close bond between the license/definition writers and the movement itself has led to

less discussion of when to open or not open data. Take this quote from http://okfn.org/opendata/

under the heading "How to open data" (bold in original):

"Address common fears and misunderstandings. This is especially important if you are working with or within large institutions such as government. When opening up data you will encounter plenty of questions and fears. It is important to (a) identify the most important ones and (b) address them at as early a stage as possible."

Compare that to the following from http://opendefinition.org/about/  (both quotes by the same organization)

"The definition sets forth principles by which to judge whether a knowledge license is open, it does not seek to provide or recommend specific licenses."

So while the definition writers do not recommend specific licenses, on another page they also want to remind their advocates how to address common fears and misunderstandings about the same licenses. I think OKF has gone to sufficient lengths to separate these two sections of their site so they reach the appropriate audience; I am not crying hypocrisy. But with direct advocacy on one side, and objective licenses on the other, where does substantive discussion fit in about when is it recommended to apply these licenses?  I haven't heard enough of that discussion and if nothing else, I think cases like the Weenusk First Nation should encourage more of that discussion. 

Maybe there should be an openmotivation.org with a decision tree helping governments and organizations decide how to make use of open data (if at all). 

This could help them decide what goals are achievable, and what contexts can help direct their efforts most effectively.

I will make an example of what I mean by this and post it soon.

Thanks again everyone who read the blog and posted comments.

Ted

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Michael Mulley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given that there is an underlying bias that open is desirable,

> shouldn't there be a discussion about what conditions make

> openness desirable or not. 

Oh, for sure!

We've had a bunch of discussions here before about whether specific examples of released data were good or bad, and these are usually very interesting. An attempt to formulate a broader list of conditions that might make openness undesirable could likewise be interesting.

My & others' objections, I think, were to muddying definitional waters, and to the Weenusk example, which seems to me not a question of whether data should be open but whether it should've been collected in the first place (and then, if one answers no to this question, whether it should be kept private -- its licensing doesn't seem like the relevant question here).

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Tracey P. Lauriault

Post Doctoral Fellow

Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre

https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault

http://datalibre.ca/
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">613-234-2805
 

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

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

[michael gurstein]

Russell and all,

I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
physical features of the land because of their particular intense
involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
etc.etc.

Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
living with their land.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
McOrmond
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
Data


On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
> http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/

  I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different.  It is good to
have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
from the more senior Free Software movement.



  When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.

  In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
"good" use of software is.  The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.

  Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts.  To focus on these things
will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
software/data towards the alternative.

  The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.


  The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
land is made more widely known, then this will harm them.   This ignores
the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
that type of exploitation than it was before.  Even if the government
refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
interests.


  What opening data does is make the data available to *others*.  Those
*others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
going to outweigh the "bad".

  I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
interests.


--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>  Please help
us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property  rights as owners of
Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
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

[Glen Newton]

A less politicised (and arguable clearer) example than the Weenusk one
is one from the area of biological conservation: the release of the
location of populations of new or threatened species can have huge
negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
"sexiness" of the species (rare orchids, or newly discovered primates,
for example) to the public (and by extension, poachers), the
publication of the location of these organisms can lead to their
reduction or extinction, and have significant negative impact on their
environment.

Few would disagree with the need to withhold or generalize this data,
seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
dominant policy now is to not release the location to the public, but
researchers will often communicate the information to other
researchers when it is requested.
Keeping it out of the public (read: "poachers") hands in this case is
acceptable.
_Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
in _not_ releasing this information.

See also:
- "Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764
- "Newly discovered slow loris species already threatened"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/newly-discovered-slow-loris-species-borneo
- "Rare Species Are Valued Big Time"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005215
- "Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on
species exploitation"
http://129.175.106.17/epc/conservation/PDFs/Endangering.pdf

-Glen

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Russell and all,
>
> I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
> indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
> found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
> The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
> that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
> many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
> physical features of the land because of their particular intense
> involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
> others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
> features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
> example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
> etc.etc.
>
> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
> living with their land.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
> McOrmond
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
> Data
>
>
> On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
>> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
>> http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/
>
>   I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
> decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
> skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different.  It is good to
> have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
> from the more senior Free Software movement.
>
>
>
>   When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
> a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
> wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
> You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
> means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
> uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.
>
>   In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
> multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
> "good" use of software is.  The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
> purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
> in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.
>
>   Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
> achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
> collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
> opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts.  To focus on these things
> will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
> software/data towards the alternative.
>
>   The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
> is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
> benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
> In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
> bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.
>
>
>   The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
> land is made more widely known, then this will harm them.   This ignores
> the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
> companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
> that type of exploitation than it was before.  Even if the government
> refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
> current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
> do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
> interests.
>
>
>   What opening data does is make the data available to *others*.  Those
> *others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
> purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
> they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
> as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
> going to outweigh the "bad".
>
>   I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
> mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
> access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
> interests.
>
>
> --
>  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>  Please help
> us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property  rights as owners of
> Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>  http://l.c11.ca/ict
>
>  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
>   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
>   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
-
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Gerry Tychon-2]

Just to add a small note to Glen's comment. This also applies to
archeological sites. The folks managing this information are quite
protective. They don't want to see sites looted or vandalized.


On 28/02/2013 4:51 AM, Glen Newton wrote:

> A less politicised (and arguable clearer) example than the Weenusk one
> is one from the area of biological conservation: the release of the
> location of populations of new or threatened species can have huge
> negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
> "sexiness" of the species (rare orchids, or newly discovered primates,
> for example) to the public (and by extension, poachers), the
> publication of the location of these organisms can lead to their
> reduction or extinction, and have significant negative impact on their
> environment.
>
> Few would disagree with the need to withhold or generalize this data,
> seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
> dominant policy now is to not release the location to the public, but
> researchers will often communicate the information to other
> researchers when it is requested.
> Keeping it out of the public (read: "poachers") hands in this case is
> acceptable.
> _Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
> in _not_ releasing this information.
>
> See also:
> - "Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764
> - "Newly discovered slow loris species already threatened"
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/newly-discovered-slow-loris-species-borneo
> - "Rare Species Are Valued Big Time"
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005215
> - "Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on
> species exploitation"
> http://129.175.106.17/epc/conservation/PDFs/Endangering.pdf
>
> -Glen
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Russell and all,
>>
>> I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
>> indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
>> found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
>> The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
>> that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
>> many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
>> physical features of the land because of their particular intense
>> involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
>> others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
>> features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
>> example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
>> etc.etc.
>>
>> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
>> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
>> living with their land.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
>> McOrmond
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
>> Data
>>
>>
>> On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
>>> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
>>> http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/
>>    I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
>> decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
>> skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different.  It is good to
>> have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
>> from the more senior Free Software movement.
>>
>>
>>
>>    When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
>> a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
>> wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
>> You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
>> means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
>> uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.
>>
>>    In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
>> multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
>> "good" use of software is.  The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
>> purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
>> in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.
>>
>>    Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
>> achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
>> collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
>> opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts.  To focus on these things
>> will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
>> software/data towards the alternative.
>>
>>    The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
>> is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
>> benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
>> In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
>> bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.
>>
>>
>>    The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
>> land is made more widely known, then this will harm them.   This ignores
>> the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
>> companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
>> that type of exploitation than it was before.  Even if the government
>> refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
>> current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
>> do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
>> interests.
>>
>>
>>    What opening data does is make the data available to *others*.  Those
>> *others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
>> purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
>> they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
>> as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
>> going to outweigh the "bad".
>>
>>    I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
>> mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
>> access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
>> interests.
>>
>>
>> --
>>   Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>  Please help
>> us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property  rights as owners of
>> Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>>   http://l.c11.ca/ict
>>
>>   "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
>>    manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
>>    portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> -
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Ted Strauss]

Glen, 

Thanks for detailing this other example, and providing the links.

The orthogonality of open licenses to the cost vs. benefit of releasing data is much clearer to me in this case.

Ted

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Gerry Tychon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just to add a small note to Glen's comment. This also applies to archeological sites. The folks managing this information are quite protective. They don't want to see sites looted or vandalized.

On 28/02/2013 4:51 AM, Glen Newton wrote:

A less politicised (and arguable clearer) example than the Weenusk one
is one from the area of biological conservation: the release of the
location of populations of new or threatened species can have huge
negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
"sexiness" of the species (rare orchids, or newly discovered primates,
for example) to the public (and by extension, poachers), the
publication of the location of these organisms can lead to their
reduction or extinction, and have significant negative impact on their
environment.

Few would disagree with the need to withhold or generalize this data,
seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
dominant policy now is to not release the location to the public, but
researchers will often communicate the information to other
researchers when it is requested.
Keeping it out of the public (read: "poachers") hands in this case is
acceptable.
_Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
in _not_ releasing this information.

See also:
- "Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764
- "Newly discovered slow loris species already threatened"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/newly-discovered-slow-loris-species-borneo
- "Rare Species Are Valued Big Time"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005215
- "Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on
species exploitation"
http://129.175.106.17/epc/conservation/PDFs/Endangering.pdf

-Glen

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russell and all,

I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
physical features of the land because of their particular intense
involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
etc.etc.

Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
living with their land.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
McOrmond
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
Data


On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:

For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/

   I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different.  It is good to
have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
from the more senior Free Software movement.



   When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.

   In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
"good" use of software is.  The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.

   Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts.  To focus on these things
will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
software/data towards the alternative.

   The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.


   The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
land is made more widely known, then this will harm them.   This ignores
the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
that type of exploitation than it was before.  Even if the government
refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
interests.


   What opening data does is make the data available to *others*.  Those
*others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
going to outweigh the "bad".

   I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
interests.


--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>  Please help
us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property  rights as owners of
Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://l.c11.ca/ict

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
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/
-
_______________________________________________
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

--

Ted Strauss

Co-founder of Trudat.co

I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Russell McOrmond]

On 13-02-27 10:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
> living with their land.

  I believe we are unnecessarily conflating very different things, which
makes it harder for people with different (and sometimes incompatible)
motivations to work together on otherwise common tasks.

  What you are discussing are reasons for indigenous groups not to
disclose information to a government, a reason for the government not to
collect information, or the reason for a government to consider
collected information as secret (and internally protect adequately, not
to be disclosed - and definitely not to be sold/etc).

  I don't see how any of these issues relate to the question of what
specific terms are used for the wide (commercial, non-commercial, open,
etc) disclosure of information.  When we are discussing whether
something is "Open Data" or "Close Data" it is still released data.


Note: It is political differences that are best kept outside of the
Free/Libre and Open data/source-software/etc movements to get into the
weeds about indigenous knowledge issues.  Many "land owners" (even if
the word "own" is inappropriate) believe there is something special
about "their" knowledge and "their" land.  It is often controversial
politics to discuss indigenous land any differently than any other land.
  If Winusk has a "right" to block mapping, then nearly all mapping
should be able to be blocked by individual "landowners" and nearly all
maps and mapping made illegal (or effectively impractical/impossible)
overnight.


--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Russel;

In my mind, it is part of what governs data release decisions.  Things should be open by design first and foremost, and then the decision tree I referred to, would be used as an objective decision making tool to inform access decisions, to release but the data are modified (aggregated), restricted access or no access, etc.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Russell McOrmond <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 13-02-27 10:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
> living with their land.

  I believe we are unnecessarily conflating very different things, which
makes it harder for people with different (and sometimes incompatible)
motivations to work together on otherwise common tasks.

  What you are discussing are reasons for indigenous groups not to
disclose information to a government, a reason for the government not to
collect information, or the reason for a government to consider
collected information as secret (and internally protect adequately, not
to be disclosed - and definitely not to be sold/etc).

  I don't see how any of these issues relate to the question of what
specific terms are used for the wide (commercial, non-commercial, open,
etc) disclosure of information.  When we are discussing whether
something is "Open Data" or "Close Data" it is still released data.


Note: It is political differences that are best kept outside of the
Free/Libre and Open data/source-software/etc movements to get into the
weeds about indigenous knowledge issues.  Many "land owners" (even if
the word "own" is inappropriate) believe there is something special
about "their" knowledge and "their" land.  It is often controversial
politics to discuss indigenous land any differently than any other land.
  If Winusk has a "right" to block mapping, then nearly all mapping
should be able to be blocked by individual "landowners" and nearly all
maps and mapping made illegal (or effectively impractical/impossible)
overnight.

--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--

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