W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

Re: adding the OKD to OGS section -- Re: Group Note -- content and sections outline

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:20:38 +0200
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Oscar Azanon <oscar.azanon@vitruviosistemas.com>, Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@okfn.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>
Message-Id: <B88D5231-29BF-4BE8-9F46-DB2530A9C6E3@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>
Hm... I don't think I fully agree. I was thinking more of referring to  
the definition as one way to go, not advocating it as the way to go.

I'm not the expert but have found many different country-dependent  
cases that would need legal policy changes to do this. You mention one  
already. Words such as "derivative" makes raise some sort of alarm in  
my head, specially when when every time we talk OGD, the authoritative  
source, provenance, trust and licensing issues come up and those are  
still unsolved.

I'm adding John to the copy and expect him to react to this.

-- Jose

El 30/03/2009, a las 17:23, Jonathan Gray escribió:
> We've also been discussing these issues with various people involved
> in Principles for Open Government Data. I think it would be wonderful
> if we could allude to the OKD to emphasise and clarify that 'open
> government data' should be 'open' in the sense that it allows, e.g.,
> commercial re-use, derivative works, and so on.
>
> This has advantages over advocating specific licenses or advocating PD
> dedication or legislative exemption from copyright (like US Federal
> government material) - as well as accounting for existing systems like
> UK Crown Copyright 'Click Use' licenses (which are OKD compliant). It
> is also includes content (that could be subject to copyright) as well
> as data (which can fall under other related rights, like EU Database
> Directive).
>
> Re: specific textual additions, what about:
>
> "Open government data should be 'open' as in the Open Knowledge
> Definition (http://www.opendefinition.org) - i.e. free for anyone to
> access, re-use and re-distribute."
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org> wrote:
>> I think this should be done to reflect well what we are compiling.
>>
>> -- Jose
>>
>>
>> El 30/03/2009, a las 17:01, Jose M. Alonso escribió:
>>
>>> Thanks, Jonathan. Attaching to ISSUE-2.
>>>
>>> -- Jose
>>>
>>>
>>> El 03/03/2009, a las 16:56, Jonathan Gray escribió:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I originally drafted the Open Government Data section a while  
>>>>> ago and
>>>>> got
>>>>> very few comments about it, so I assume people is happy with the  
>>>>> content
>>>>> so
>>>>> far. I also asked about the outline of that sections and if was  
>>>>> good
>>>>> enough
>>>>> or not and people agreed on being good and serve as basis for  
>>>>> other
>>>>> sections.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether it could be appropriate to allude to the Open
>>>> Knowledge Definition in this section?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opendefinition.org/
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Gray
>>>>
>>>> Community Coordinator
>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>> http://www.okfn.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://www.okfn.org
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 11:21:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 11:21:33 GMT