Open Government Data bill (for comments)

[Seth Cohn]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Bill McGonigle <bill at bfccomputing.com> wrote:
> Very well thought-out, Seth.  Two nits:
>
>>                               (6)  If it allows extensions, ensures
>> that all extensions of the data format are themselves documented and
>> have the other characteristics of an open data format;
>
> I get the intent here, but this is too high a hurdle with current wording.  It could be used to rule out XML since not everybody knows how to part everybody else's CDATA blocks.  I think what you mean is that any State data cannot be stored in an undocumented extension.  If everything useful is ruled out, then the current proprietary stuff has to continue being used, right?

I think this means 'all extensions in use are' are documented (ie you
can have undocumented extensions to allow you to save something in a
custom format but it fails that test then for those items saved, they
aren't in an Open Data Format), but that's a good clarification.  I
welcome improved text... this is Open Source legislation: make it
better with a patch.  You get the intent, you understand the tech,
describe better what we mean here.

>>                               (8)  If it includes any use of
>> encryption, provides that the encryption algorithm is usable in a
>> royalty-free, nondiscriminatory manner in perpetuity, and is
>> documented so that anyone in possession of the appropriate encryption
>> key or keys is able to write software to unencrypt the data.
>
> 'Encryption' may be too narrow - hashing, HMAC'ing, etc. could also be used to defeat the main purposes (though perhaps the intent is sufficiently clear).

Ditto.

Seth