Re: Two blog posts that may be of interest

Hi Leigh,

Thanks for your excellent comments.  I was not aware of Open Licenses. 
Looks like they have json versions.  Do we feel this is machine readable 
enough to avoid re-inventing this wheel and can instead make a 
recommendation to use it?


Best Regards,

Steve

Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"



From:
Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
To:
Steven Adler/Somers/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:
DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Date:
05/14/2014 04:05 PM
Subject:
Re: Two blog posts that may be of interest



Hi Steve,

re: your opening paragraph:

"Open Data should be Open, right? When I read "Open Data" I think it
means the data can be used openly by anyone for any purpose. But it
ain't so. Read the fine print in the terms and conditions and you'll
quickly realize that Open Data really means wide open liability"

I agree with sentiment, Open Data should available for anyone to use
for any purpose. There's a clear definition [1] of what openness
means. Cities and publishers should be encouraged to use an open
licence or waiver when publishing their data.

Those that don't, e.g. Chicago and Palo Alto, should be challenged
about what their terms contain and/or encouraged to submit their
license for review under the open definition [2]. This is a good way
to highlight areas where a licence isnt not open and for them to get
constructive feedback.

However I think we should be careful about phrasing like "Open data is
not open for business". Open data published under an open licence *is*
suitable for business re-use, and I think we should be strict about
how the term is used. Having a definition helps.

The issue here is with "open washing" [3] and publishers sharing data
that is claimed to be open even when it isn't.

Open Data *is* open for business. But it ain't open data if its
doesn't have an open licence. It just "accessible data" which is
encumbered with complex and limited terms, as you note.

Cheers,

L.


[1]. http://opendefinition.org/
[2]. http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/
[3]. 
http://blog.okfn.org/2014/03/10/open-washing-the-difference-between-opening-your-data-and-simply-making-them-available/



On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Here are two perspectives on the business use of Open Data.  I think we 
can
> take up the first topic as a recommendation in our Best Practices work.
>
> The question is, should Open Data license terms be machine readable? And 
if
> so, should we (and can we) define a standard vocabulary to make it so?
>
> 
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140512164919-384693-open-data-is-not-open-for-business?trk=mp-reader-card

>
> 
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140514120932-384693-business-needs-open-data?trk=mp-reader-card

>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"



-- 
Leigh Dodds
Freelance Technologist
Open Data, Linked Data Geek
t: @ldodds
w: ldodds.com
e: leigh@ldodds.com