Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
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? (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). -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner BFC Computing, LLC http://bfccomputing.com/ Telephone: +1.603.448.4440 Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Bill McGonigle b...@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 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. jeff I'm being a bit impractical and redundant here, but I would also like to see all standards be available to the public on request. I know this was covered in the amendment, but I am looking at the ISO website and I'm seeing that for ODF it would cost about 335 dollars to get the specification for it. I'm not sure how it could be implemented without infringing on the ISO's copyrights. I see a lot of standards that NH mandates, but they seem to be set at the RSA- level. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is enough support to add, once I get general buy in. On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Ryan Stanyan ryan.stan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm being a bit impractical and redundant here, but I would also like to see all standards be available to the public on request. I know this was covered in the amendment, but I am looking at the ISO website and I'm seeing that for ODF it would cost about 335 dollars to get the specification for it. I'm not sure how it could be implemented without infringing on the ISO's copyrights. I see a lot of standards that NH mandates, but they seem to be set at the RSA- level. 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? Jeffry wrote: Good point. For ODT, the saving grace is that it's an OASIS standard as well, which is freely available (http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OpenDocument-v1.1.odt) - but that's not true for other ISO standards. Which solves ODT, but raises the question, would ISO standards be considered Open? Seth ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
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 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Seth Cohn sethc...@gnuhampshire.org wrote: On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is enough support to add, once I get general buy in. My concern is if it's not in the guidance, the policy makers will weasel out OOXML is a standard so MS Office is good (ISO 29500) - even though, in fact, there are NO conforming implementations (MS admits MS Office does NOT conform to the ISO standard). The requirement for multiple implementations helps make IETF documents self-regulating, as it does this. How do you know it's open? There are two independant implementations of software that reads/writes the standard, and they can exchange information. No need to worry about definitions (except related to patent/copyright). jeff. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Seth Cohn sethc...@gnuhampshire.org wrote: On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is enough support to add, once I get general buy in. My concern is if it's not in the guidance, the policy makers will weasel out OOXML is a standard so MS Office is good (ISO 29500) - even though, in fact, there are NO conforming implementations (MS admits MS Office does NOT conform to the ISO standard). The requirement for multiple implementations helps make IETF documents self-regulating, as it does this. How do you know it's open? There are two independant implementations of software that reads/writes the standard, and they can exchange information. No need to worry about definitions (except related to patent/copyright). For better or worse, this is going to have to be a policy maker decision. Trying to craft legislation that specifically excludes a party out(almost like a bill of attainder) is going to be fiercely fought in the courts. Keep it simple and start a process similar to the ETRM that Massachusetts has. Also seeing as how the ISO spec for OOXML covers four separate documents versus ODF's one, some kind of value proposition can be raised. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Open Government Data bill (for comments)
This isn't quite on topic for the list, but it's certainly within reason... think what you would do with RSS feeds, XML, and other useful things like that being generated from the data at the State level... The principles are based on the 2007 summit that set up the basic ideas: http://resource.org/8_principles.html http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles yours, Rep. Seth Cohn The text of the Open Government Data bill (subject to revisions still, but hurry with your suggestions): AN ACT relative to the use of open data formats and the adoption of a statewide policy regarding open government data standards. SPONSORS: [sponsors] COMMITTEE: [committee] ANALYSIS This bill directs the commissioner of information technology to develop a statewide information policy based on certain principles of open government data. The bill also promotes the use of open data formats by state agencies. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.] Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven AN ACT relative to the use of open data formats and the adoption of a statewide policy regarding open government data standards. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 Statement of Purpose. The general court is committed to using technology to foster open, transparent, and accessible state government and finds that, by sharing data freely, the state will generate new opportunities for economic development, commerce, and civic engagement for the citizens of this state. The general court further finds that adoption of open government data standards will improve transparency, access to public information, and coordination between state agencies and the private sector by providing timely access to relevant information in a less costly manner. In furtherance of these objectives, this legislation lays the groundwork for adoption of a statewide information policy based on the principles of open government data and encourages the adoption of open data formats by state agencies. 2 Department of Information Technology; Duties of Commissioner Regarding Acquisition of Information Systems. Amend RSA 21-R:4, I to read as follows: I. Providing technical information technology consultation to all executive branch agencies and to any other agency that requests it, including technical advice consistent with the principles of open government data established in RSA 21-R:7-a and RSA 21-R:8-b during the development or acquisition of information systems. 3 New Section; Statewide Information Policy; Open Government Data Standards. Amend RSA 21-R by inserting after paragraph 7 the following new paragraph: 21-R:7-a Open Government Data Standards. I. The commissioner shall develop a statewide information policy based on the following principles of open government data. According to these principles, open data is data that is: (a) Complete. All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. (b) Primary. Data is collected at the sources, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. (c) Timely. Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data. (d) Accessible. Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes. (e) Machine processable. Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing. (f) Non-discriminatory. Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration. (g) Non-proprietary. Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control. (h) License-free. Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security, and privilege restrictions may be allowed. II. The information policy developed under paragraph I shall include a mechanism for adoption and review by each state agency. Upon adopting the policy, an agency shall designate a contact person responsible for oversight and implementation of open government data standards for that agency. The contact shall act as a liaison between the department, the implementing agency, and the public in matters related to open government data standards. The commissioner shall include the status of the development and implementation of the statewide information policy based on open government data standards in the quarterly report to the
[meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
Does it make sense to set up a separate list (or mailman topic) for these conversations? If so, I would propose gnhlug-lobby. I'm not suggesting that it is inappropriate for GNHLUG consideration, but I would like to keep tech conversations separate from governance (either internal as in gnhlug-org, or external as in these messages). (Actually, I find these conversations very appropriate for GNHLUG consideration.) Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) --Bruce On 01/10/2011 04:23 PM, Seth Cohn wrote: This isn't quite on topic for the list, but it's certainly within reason... think what you would do with RSS feeds, XML, and other useful things like that being generated from the data at the State level... The principles are based on the 2007 summit that set up the basic ideas: http://resource.org/8_principles.html http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles yours, Rep. Seth Cohn ... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
I think the discussions are both relevant and interesting. If Seth starts asking about baby formula laws, etc. then perhaps another list, but Open Government Data Bill would seem to fit with Open Source, IMHO md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson j...@codemeta.com wrote: Does it make sense to set up a separate list (or mailman topic) for these conversations? list admin A1. If there is consensus to do so, another list is trivial to add. A2. This list (gnhlug-discuss) currently has no formal topic, charter, or policy (aside from the general legal policy of gnhlug.org (http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/LegalNotice)). /list admin personal opinion P1. Historically, list traffic has been self-policed by list members, with varying degrees of effectiveness. P2. I think we probably should have some sort of formal topic, charter, or policy for gnhlug-discuss. P3. I think we are unlikely to arrive at P2. P4. Currently, this list doesn't get nearly enough traffic to warrant separate lists. What little interest we do currently draw is more likely to be harmed by balkanization or barrier to entry. P5. I expect this thread will consume far more list bandwidth than the thread(s) in question will. /personal opinion Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) board member B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New Hampshire B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! /board member -- Ben /message ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson j...@codemeta.com wrote: Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) board member B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New Hampshire B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! /board member -- Ben While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix AIM abreauj / JABBER j...@jabber.blu.org / YAHOO abreauj / SKYPE zusa_it_mgr Email j...@blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
And to be clear: I posted the 2 bills (or rather the draft texts of them, which aren't otherwise online yet) and invited comments because of my respect for the many astute minds on this list. Individuals who wish to help pass such legislation as interested citizens are welcome (and those with issues against it are also welcome, to be clear, I'd love to hear the reasons against to help me prepare answers for them), but I'm certainly not asking for GNHLUG as a formal group to take a position, lobby, or otherwise get involved. yours, Rep. Cohn On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, John Abreau j...@blu.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson j...@codemeta.com wrote: Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) board member B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New Hampshire B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! /board member -- Ben While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, John Abreau j...@blu.org wrote: While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. personal opinion My extremely limited understanding is that 501(c)3 organizations are permitted some political actions, but political action cannot be a major purpose of the group, and there are some other limitations. Those limitations apply to the organizations only; individual members, acting on their own, are not limited by those rules. Where this list falls I'm not sure. I suspect it depends on usage. So the occasional political discussion (such as what Seth is posting) is fine, but if that became a significant part of list traffic it might be a problem. For those who don't know: 501(c) is the section of the Federal tax code which treats tax-exempt organizations. The IRS does not recognize non-profit; it defines classes of organizations which are exempt from Federal taxes. Not all such organizations are non-profit[1]. 501(c)3 is about charitable organizations. 501(c)3 orgs are special in that donations to such orgs are tax deductible by the donor. [1] The National Football League is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt organization. /personal opinion -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
