[meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)

[Ryan Stanyan]

On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 07:25:49 am you wrote:
> doesn't this cover that?
> 
>  (d)  Make readily accessible, on the state
> website, documentation on open data formats used by the state of New
> Hampshire.  When data in open format is made available through the
> state's website, a link shall be provided to the corresponding data
> format documentation.
> 
> In this case, common use of ODF would mean that a link/download to the
> ODF documentation (aka the spec)
> should be posted on the state website.  If the spec is copyright to
> the point of forbidden reposting, I think that fails
> 
> (4)  Has a specification available for all to read, in a
> human-readable format, written in commonly accepted
> technical language;
> 
> That's not really available for all to read, only those with $335, right?

I'm a huge public policy buff so I tend to think about the implementation of a 
law beforehand.  My point could probably be fixed by whatever department that 
manages documents just having copies of it available.

The greatest value I am seeing here is that along with the openness of the 
technology there is an openness of process as well.  Rather than betting the 
farm on a proprietary solution, we also have a record of how it worked out.  I 
am reading the policy that Massachusetts has in place (www.mass.gov/itd/etrm) 
and the state government can look towards this to figure out where the 
pitfalls are.

>[...]would ISO standards be considered Open?

I'm reading through the ETRM a bit and I see that ANF considers the ISO open.  
However, they go with the Ecma and OASIS bodies first, I assume because they 
are more nimble than the ISO.

-Ryan