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:
The principles for the release of sensitive data are as follows:
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.
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 sensethat the close bond between the license/definition writers and the movement itself has led toless 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.TedOn 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
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |