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

Re: FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT: FW: please review and edit "Projects", wiki note

From: Jose Manuel Alonso <josema.alonso@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:32:01 +0100
Cc: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>, "Novak, Kevin" <KevinNovak@aia.org>, eGovIG IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E216D5FB-3A7C-4382-964A-522B5F688189@fundacionctic.org>
To: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
It was suggested (by Hugh on IRC, thanks Chris) this one to be an  
agenda+ before taking on the Projects page (glad to add it)

Here's my quick take.

I currently work a lot on Linked Government Data. I think it's the way  
to go. I also think it's not the only way to go.

We had a long discussion on what "open data", namely on what "open"  
means.

Chairs agree on that OGD is broader than LGD. LGD is one way of doing  
OGD, and I believe there's consensus about this (as there was when we  
published both Notes)
If LGD is the best way possible to do OGD, that's another discussion  
we might have (my opinion is above :)

Said that, we might want to distinguish technology and policy, such as  
in "open data" and "open government"

Here's a question: if a government releases 1,000 Excel files with  
data never made available before is that open?

I would ask: open, in what sense?

Being me an open standards advocate I cannot recognize that as "open  
data" but I'd be more than happy to recognize it as a step forward  
towards "open government" and improvement of transparency.

Just some thoughts, hope we could discuss more in a few minutes.

-- Jose


El 03/12/2009, a las 23:44, Thomas Bandholtz escribió:
> Hi Cory,
>
> Cory Casanave schrieb:
>> Thomas,
>> I must disagree with you on this point.
> No problem, we are here for discussion and debate.
>> There is a fundamental
>> different between being able to point at "some data" in "some format"
>> and knowing that we can query, traverse and understand the data and
>> metadata.
>>
> Exactly this is what I wanted to be distinguished.
>> The value proposition for visibility of information in open  
>> government
>> demands the type of commitment to standards.
> Right. You probably will acknowledge some diversity of such standards
> around.
>> We need an internet data
>> model to support this vision.  We published some thoughts on this  
>> here:
>> http://portal.modeldriven.org/content/data-cloud
>> Should it be RDF?  At this point I don't see any other alternative on
>> the table.
>
> Well, I personally favour RDF as well.
> But I see many agencies proud about publishing by Web Services (WSDL,
> SOAP), SDI/OGC spatial services, etcetera etcetera, which are  
> standards
> in their own right.
> Are you proposing a statement such as "Open Government Data can be  
> only
> called open if it gets published in RDF?"
> Sorry, I wouldn't buy that.
>
>> We know that the various formats you enumerate can be
>> normalized to an RDF format.
> Right, you can do so. But agencies might not want to do so, and why
> should they?
> (Seroiusly, give me some reasons different from "this ist the one and
> only format")
>> This will give government the "data cloud"
>> that is the visibility of information relating to or produced by
>> government.
>>
> I think exactly this is the problem about authorities: they don't want
> to be some diffuse part of some cloud.
> They are not so amused about the open world assumption as we are, hey?
> Secondly, is the "data cloud" so visible in the eyes of citizens?
> I think definitely not, at least so far.
>
>> Normalizing on an RDF data cloud does not mean you can't have other
>> forms of data that may be more tuned to the data source, but lets  
>> also
>> have the RDF rendition.
>>
> WS or OGC or even simple HTML are not "more tuned to the data source"
> than RDF is, they are just different from RDF
> Again, RDF Linked Data is just one of many technologies for  
> publishing OGD.
> RDF Linked Data is my favorite technology (obviously just like  
> yours?),
> and I am convinced it is the superior pattern.
> But it is not the only pattern.
> Time will tell ...
>
>> Regards,
>> Cory Casanave
>>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 13:32:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 December 2009 13:32:41 GMT