Re: When are "open" data open?

Hi Stephan,

I have checked the linksmart sourceforge page, and it's not clear what it
offers and how it solves the issues you have raised.

As Richard mentioned, it would be good to understand how these comments
specifically relate to the current GLD work. If you think there are
recommendations that are missing, please be specific on where and what
could be rewritten.

If you check the GLD recommendations that are currently being created, the
standard that is recommended to use is RDF and vocabularies based on this
standard, which I think is quite flexible and able to adapt freely with the
changing "world reality". If you think this is not the case, it would be
interesting to hear your point of view, even if I think it's an issue wider
than the GLD group.

Now, for security of the opened data, it's an interesting issue, and there
is a section about it in the GLD recommendation document. Maybe you want to
make specific comments on this.

Thanks,

Pierre

--
Pierre Andrews, Ph.D.
Research Fellow


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, <Stephan.Engberg@priway.com> wrote:

> Dear Sir,
>
> Creating semantic interoperability represent huge possibilities for
> cost-redcution, improving quality and enabling new kinds of previously
> unseen solutions.
>
> However, when studying the available work on linked data, 2 vital aspects
> not incorporated jumps to my mind - one about innovation or continous
> change and one about Empowerment or the assurances that control rests with
> the entity at risk and defining the demand (mostly the citizen)
>
> a) The approach assume standardisation around a single univeral definition
> b) The approach fail to separate between data that are safe to share and
> data that represent a risk to someone.
>
> Ad a) Making strucgtures arund a single univesal standard would make
> everything stalemate by legacy.
> We need structures that are much more resilient to continous change in many
> directions. And yes this means that we must accept that we cannot FORCE the
> world into a standard bucket unless such as bucket is able to crasp the
> world reality.
>
> I sugest a nested approach without any assumptions on outcome. We applied
> such an approach in the EU HYDRA project which is partly implemented
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/linksmart/
>
>
> Ad b) Even more important is the need to respect fundamental rights and
> society needs.
>
> Buracurats and cynical corporate interests wants to ecxhange data ABOUT
> someone as that increase their power and ability to profit. However such a
> structure represent a failure by design. EVEN if "anonymised" or
> "pseudonymised" such an approach represent a certain failure as it drives
> linkage in sources without security.
>
> I kindly refer you to this presentation that are in essence stating the key
> elements.
> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Stephan.pdf
>
> As can be seen the definition of what can constitute "open" data and how
> data must be incapsulated to maintain or eliminate linkage to context is
> not a simple question.
>
> We should be extremely carefull NOT to see this from a system-centric or
> bureaucrat perspective for WHATEVER excuse, e.g. assuming researchers or
> even security administrators CAN access and link data on individuals for
> research perspectives.
>
>
> I kindly suggest to you that failure to incorporate the two above issues
> represents a failure to the economy not smaller than that of former Eastern
> European Communism as it leads to legacy-based ineffectiveness and massive
> centraslisation of power and control at the expense of citizens and
> society.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Stephan Engberg
> Priway - Security in Context
>
>  ..  because the alternative is not an option
>
> =======================================================
> Stephan Engberg | Stephan.Engberg@priway.com
> Priway - VAT/SE DK  25 77 53 76
> Stengaards Alle 33D - 2800 Kgs. Lyngby - Denmark
> Tel.: (+45) 2834 0404  - Internet: www.priway.com
>
>
>
>