Re: The case for context in defining Open Data

Posted by Ted Strauss on Feb 26, 2013; 8:17pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/The-case-for-context-in-defining-Open-Data-tp5474p5487.html

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