The case for context in defining Open Data
Locked
12
12
The case for context in defining Open Data
 
|
Hello all, In honor of Open Data Day, I wrote this blog post: Hope to hear your comments. It's the first post on Strength in Numbers, the official blog of Trudat, with posts by Naomi Kincler and myself.
Trudat is a web application for collaborative data discovery. It will be launching later this year. --
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
Open Data has a fairly well accepted definition.
If you want to define something else (which may be useful in a related context), come up with another name for it. Otherwise you are just muddying the waters. I was also not convinced by your initial arguments (Weenusk, others). Almost every data release has implications, and needs to be dealt with. But do not conflate these issues with Open Data. The very same data could be released with a restrictive license, and have the same - in the case of your claims - negative impacts. For example, in the Weenusk case, the data could be released in with a no-reuse, no re-distribution license (so clearly not Open Data) and have the exact same impact. Do not conflate the content of the data (and the implications of sharing the knowledge/information contained in the data) with its license. -Glen -glen -Glen On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello all, > In honor of Open Data Day, I wrote this blog post: > The case for context in defining Open Data > > Hope to hear your comments. > > It's the first post on Strength in Numbers, the official > blog of Trudat, with posts by Naomi Kincler and myself. > Trudat is a web application for collaborative data discovery. > It will be launching later this year. > > -- > 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 -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
Thanks for your feedback Glen. I'll think carefully on your comments, and will reply if I think I can speak directly to your points.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: Open Data has a fairly well accepted definition. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Glen Newton
Thanks for your post, Ted, but I'm not sure I recognize what the problem is it's trying to address. So without getting into specific examples, it's in no way contradictory or problematic in terms of definitions for an open data release to have negative effects. Nobody with any kind of voice is claiming that all government data should be open.
> When using or building an open data site or app ask yourself: > who is this built for, to do what with, and why? Please don’t > only ask: is the data open enough? Well, of course -- I don't think anyone is asking only that. Even in this community, where we know how tricky and important licenses are and so pay particular attention to them, I've never heard the argument that openness should be our sole concern. This feels a little strawmanny.
> To open data means to apply any combination of open principles > to achieve one’s goals in the context of a particular situation. At the moment, it doesn't. Thanks to years of effort by a global community, there's a consensus definition as to what "to open data" means (opendefinition.org). The above definition -- which is so broad as to apply to virtually anything -- would lose us precision and hurt interoperability between open data projects (one of the essential goals of the movement), on the way to making "open data", whether as verb or noun, an empty feel-good term.
I think you'll find open-data advocates very ready to agree that open data is a tool that isn't the solution to every problem, that some data should not be open, and that it's possible and potentially desirable for a business model to embrace collaboration and openness without actually opening data. Far better to acknowledge this than try to make "open data" refer to everything good and nothing bad.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: Open Data has a fairly well accepted definition. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Ted Strauss
For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at: On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
Thanks for sharing this, Ted!
Many interesting points. One that I would like to highlight as it relates to my work mapping open access and Creative Commons licensing (or to be more precise articulating how it is that these things don't actually quite map): from Strength in Numbers: The label ‘open’ becomes more complicated when we realize that even with a permissive license, data isn’t even remotely useful -and thus not truly open- unless it is properly organized, annotated, and saved to a format that is reasonably interoperable across software. Comment: a very good point. At the BC Open Data Summit Stephane Guidoin explained the key role of the development of the GTFS standard in making it possible to rapidly open access transit data for creating applications across a multitude of jurisdictions. If we want open, reusable data, then things like formatting and metadata to facilitate reuse are arguably more critical than open licensing (I'm not sure if GTFS is openly licensed - does anyone know?). This is similar to arguments that I make with respect to open access and creative commons. Some think that CC-BY is essential to facilitate data and text mining, but I argue that it is not necessary (search engines don't need it), sufficient (picture a CC-BY license on a locked-down PDF), or even desirable (because attribution is a problem when combining a number of datasets). The case of the Weenusk First Nations' objections to release of geodata about their land is one that merits serious discussion in open circles. "Open" can mean "open for exploitation". Many of us would argue that this is a social harm! To move to a more open society, I argue that it is necessary to consider both the positive and the negative potential unleashed with opening up of data. I believe we can steer towards the public good and away from the dangers - but only with eyes wide open. best, Heather Morrison The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2013-02-26, at 10:58 AM, Ted Strauss wrote: > For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at: > http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/ > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello all, > In honor of Open Data Day, I wrote this blog post: > The case for context in defining Open Data > > Hope to hear your comments. > > It's the first post on Strength in Numbers, the official > blog of Trudat, with posts by Naomi Kincler and myself. > Trudat is a web application for collaborative data discovery. > It will be launching later this year. > > -- > Ted Strauss > Co-founder of Trudat.co > > I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013 > > > > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Mulley
I agree that the proposed redefinition:
> To open data means to apply any combination of open principles to achieve one’s goals in the context of a particular situation. is extremely vague. With this definition, groups can argue indefinitely about whether a dataset is open or not. The OKF definition covers a set of desirable qualities that we want to see in government-published data, and strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get. It would have been possible to add other conditions, e.g. asking that the data's lineage be included in any release, which is very important to many data users. It wasn't included, because that condition would make it very hard for most data publishers to call any of their data "open". Open data needs to be seen as an achievable goal for data publishers to subscribe to the idea. The OKF definition also strives to list only those qualities that a dataset *must* have to be open data - the minimal, necessary and sufficient conditions for data to be "open". It could have included a long list of desirable but optional qualities, but that would have made communications work around open data much harder. The current, simple definition is one of the reasons so many politicians "get it". The direction of the proposed definition suggests that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions - that it all depends on context. This makes the open data lobby much weaker, because data publishers will always be able to argue "we were able to achieve our goals in our context, so it the data must be open, by definition." Lobbying benefits from clear, precise definitions. The current phrasing also suffers from the fact that I can use *no* open principles, but if I achieve my goal in my context, then I've "opened data". Anyway, I don't want to start a tangent about refining the definitions. There are plenty of problems to solve in the world of open data. The solution is not to redefine open data, however. As Glen suggests, if you need a working definition for your concepts, you need to come up with a new name. James On 2013-02-26, at 1:45 PM, Michael Mulley wrote: > Thanks for your post, Ted, but I'm not sure I recognize what the problem is it's trying to address. > > The post seems to rely on the implied notion that "open data" should refer only to good, happy things. Which I don't agree with. We've seen "open" as adjective used in endless warm, fuzzy, and fundamentally meaningless political uses; for "open data", I think we're far better off with the current more-or-less objective consensus definition. > > So without getting into specific examples, it's in no way contradictory or problematic in terms of definitions for an open data release to have negative effects. Nobody with any kind of voice is claiming that all government data should be open. > > > When using or building an open data site or app ask yourself: > > who is this built for, to do what with, and why? Please don’t > > only ask: is the data open enough? > > Well, of course -- I don't think anyone is asking only that. Even in this community, where we know how tricky and important licenses are and so pay particular attention to them, I've never heard the argument that openness should be our sole concern. This feels a little strawmanny. > > > To open data means to apply any combination of open principles > > to achieve one’s goals in the context of a particular situation. > > At the moment, it doesn't. Thanks to years of effort by a global community, there's a consensus definition as to what "to open data" means (opendefinition.org). The above definition -- which is so broad as to apply to virtually anything -- would lose us precision and hurt interoperability between open data projects (one of the essential goals of the movement), on the way to making "open data", whether as verb or noun, an empty feel-good term. > > I think you'll find open-data advocates very ready to agree that open data is a tool that isn't the solution to every problem, that some data should not be open, and that it's possible and potentially desirable for a business model to embrace collaboration and openness without actually opening data. Far better to acknowledge this than try to make "open data" refer to everything good and nothing bad. > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: > Open Data has a fairly well accepted definition. > > If you want to define something else (which may be useful in a related > context), come up with another name for it. Otherwise you are just > muddying the waters. > > I was also not convinced by your initial arguments (Weenusk, others). > Almost every data release has implications, and needs to be dealt > with. But do not conflate these issues with Open Data. The very same > data could be released with a restrictive license, and have the same - > in the case of your claims - negative impacts. For example, in the > Weenusk case, the data could be released in with a no-reuse, no > re-distribution license (so clearly not Open Data) and have the exact > same impact. > Do not conflate the content of the data (and the implications of > sharing the knowledge/information contained in the data) with its > license. > > -Glen > > -glen > > -Glen > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ted Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > In honor of Open Data Day, I wrote this blog post: > > The case for context in defining Open Data > > > > Hope to hear your comments. > > > > It's the first post on Strength in Numbers, the official > > blog of Trudat, with posts by Naomi Kincler and myself. > > Trudat is a web application for collaborative data discovery. > > It will be launching later this year. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > - > 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 _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
On 2013-02-26, at 11:17 AM, James McKinney wrote:
The OKF definition covers a set of desirable qualities that we want to see in government-published data, and strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get. Comment / questions: 1. Please define "we". 2. Can you explain precisely how the OKF definition "strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get" in the context of the Weenusk First Nations' concerns? From Ted Strauss' blogpost: "In northern Ontario, the provincial government recently conducted an aerial geological survey and was on track to publish the results publicly online (source). The mining industry was more than ready to review this free data collected at tax-payers expense. But the Weenusk First Nation, whose land was unknowingly part of the survey, did not see openness in the same light. “To us, freedom doesn’t have staked claims,” Weenusk Chief Edmund Hunter said". Te Strauss' case for context can be found here: http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/ best, Heather Morrison The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
The Weenusk issue has nothing to do with Open Data.
In the past the Gov of Ontario released this kind of data with a non-Open Data license for all to see (but not reuse, redistribute, etc). Open Data or restrictive data release: the Weenusk issue is with the publication of the data, not its license. It is orthogonal to the license issue. -Glen On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2013-02-26, at 11:17 AM, James McKinney wrote: > > The OKF definition covers a set of desirable qualities that we want to see in government-published data, and strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get. > > Comment / questions: > > 1. Please define "we". > > 2. Can you explain precisely how the OKF definition "strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get" in the context of the Weenusk First Nations' concerns? > > From Ted Strauss' blogpost: > > "In northern Ontario, the provincial government recently conducted an aerial geological survey and was on track to publish the results publicly online (source). The mining industry was more than ready to review this free data collected at tax-payers expense. But the Weenusk First Nation, whose land was unknowingly part of the survey, did not see openness in the same light. “To us, freedom doesn’t have staked claims,” Weenusk Chief Edmund Hunter said". > > Te Strauss' case for context can be found here: > http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/ > > best, > > Heather Morrison > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
On 2013-02-26, at 11:49 AM, Glen Newton wrote:
The Weenusk issue has nothing to do with Open Data. In the past the Gov of Ontario released this kind of data with a non-Open Data license for all to see (but not reuse, redistribute, etc). Open Data or restrictive data release: the Weenusk issue is with the publication of the data, not its license. It is orthogonal to the license issue. Comment: I disagree. Whether data is made available to the public, or not, is absolutely central to open data. Unless you think that if governments "release" data on secure hard drives not connected to the internet at all - using an open license - that constitutes open data? This is a logical conclusion based on your argument. I hope everyone is enjoying "Freedom to Read Week", where we celebrate our freedom to read - and to speak! best, Heather Morrison The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Heather Morrison-2
> Whether data is made available to the public, or not, is absolutely central to open data.
It's central to the question, "Should we release this data?", but it's not central to the question of "Should this data be open data?" Governments often charge for data, in which case it is not open, and in that case they only need to consider the first question, which doesn't mention open data at all. There is clearly a difference between the two questions. > Unless you think that if governments "release" data on secure hard drives not connected to the internet at all - using an open license - that constitutes open data? This is a logical conclusion based on your argument. If it's "secure" in the sense that it's encrypted, then it's not open, because not anyone can use it in that case. Otherwise, in some cases, hard disk delivery is an efficient way of distributing large datasets. If anyone can request data on hard drives, then yes, it would be open. On 2013-02-26, at 2:43 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > On 2013-02-26, at 11:17 AM, James McKinney wrote: > > The OKF definition covers a set of desirable qualities that we want to see in government-published data, and strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get. > > Comment / questions: > > 1. Please define "we". I'm to the best of my ability expressing the majority opinion within the existing open data community with respect to the definition of "open data". I'm all for having a broader discussion of open data, but starting with a redefinition of basic terms is starting on the wrong foot. We can have more useful discussions than trying to redefine what "open data" means. > 2. Can you explain precisely how the OKF definition "strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get" in the context of the Weenusk First Nations' concerns? See Glen's response and mine above. James _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Ted Strauss
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 |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Heather Morrison-2
The release I am referring to is how the government would previously
release data: on a web site, freely available to read, not freely available to re-use, etc. Just crown copyright. Not Open Data. In the Weenusk example, this kind of release would have the same result. -g On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2013-02-26, at 11:49 AM, Glen Newton wrote: > > The Weenusk issue has nothing to do with Open Data. In the past the Gov of Ontario released this kind of data with a non-Open Data license for all to see (but not reuse, redistribute, > etc). Open Data or restrictive data release: the Weenusk issue is with the publication of the data, not its license. It is orthogonal to the license issue. > > Comment: I disagree. Whether data is made available to the public, or not, is absolutely central to open data. > > Unless you think that if governments "release" data on secure hard drives not connected to the internet at all - using an open license - that constitutes open data? This is a logical conclusion based on your argument. > > I hope everyone is enjoying "Freedom to Read Week", where we celebrate our freedom to read - and to speak! > > best, > > Heather Morrison > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Mulley
Michael Mulley:
I'd like to reply to 2 specific points you make. Thanks to years of effort by a global community, there's a consensus definition as to what "to open data" means (opendefinition.org). The above definition -- which is so broad as to apply to virtually anything -- would lose us precision and hurt interoperability between open data projects (one of the essential goals of the movement), on the way to making "open data", whether as verb or noun, an empty feel-good term. I concede that changing open data definitions as described in my post would lead to a vague, overly inclusive, definition. In attempting to stimulate discussion, I admit I overstated the point. If I could restate it, I would frame the importance of context and clear objectives as important parts of the process/discourse on open data, not necessarily to a formal definition. Point taken.
I think you'll find open-data advocates very ready to agree that open data is a tool that isn't the solution to every problem, that some data should not be open, and that it's possible and potentially desirable for a business model to embrace collaboration and openness without actually opening data. Far better to acknowledge this than try to make "open data" refer to everything good and nothing bad. I certainly agree that open data isn't a panacea. And I would argue as you do that the movement and the definition does treat openness as a generally desirable thing. The connotations of the word open are certainly positive.
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. Ted _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
On 13-02-26 03:14 PM, James McKinney wrote:
> It's central to the question, "Should we release this data?", but > it's not central to the question of "Should this data be open data?" I would go further and suggest that this relates to the question of "do we need/should we collect this data". As we know, security within many parts of government is poor and information will end up leaked if it is stored and not treated with the level of respect required. Of course, the government could release more privileged mapping data within letters to first nations apologizing for a previous leak. That said, I obviously agree with what you and Glen are saying, which is that the Weenusk issue has nothing to do with Open Data. -- 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 |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell McOrmond
On 2013-02-26, at 12:15 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
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. Comment: I agree. Ted makes many good points in his blogpost. However, opening "to achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" means that private sales of mining data to commercial companies is an opening of data. To the commercial company, this is indeed an opening, however this is clearly not open data! best, Heather Morrison _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Ted Strauss
> 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 |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
As the open data movement evolves, I think that we will find that there are degrees of openness and the optimal degree will depend on the context (to draw a little from Ted's post).
Thanks to Glen for pointing out that the Weenusk case really isn't open data. The whole point of opening up data for reuse is to facilitate reuse. This would open up data for the use by the Weenusk - but it would also open up access to many more mining companies and others that might wish to exploit the land. I'm not familiar with the situation for the Weenusk, but overall I believe that there is still considerable geographic inequity in access to internet, computers, and education. If we want everyone to enjoy the benefits of open data, then everyone needs to have access to the tools to make use of it. Simply opening up the data without addressing this inequity increases the probability of exploitation. best, Heather On 2013-02-26, at 12:27 PM, Michael Mulley 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 _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Mulley
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:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: The case for context in defining Open Data
|
|
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 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |