Rebooting this committee

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rebooting this committee

Arnulf Christl
Hi,
this mailing list pertains to the Public Geospatial Data Committee [1].
I want to propose a few things which we might want to have a
conversation about. Maybe later this becomes a motion to create a work
group in this committee - if need be. Once we have figured out who is
interested in this work group and is prepared to collaborate we can step
up and have regular meetings and so on. But lets not overcommit right away.

0. Whatever already works in this committee should not be interrupted by
these new ideas. There has been considerable work on creating vector and
data repositories and services. I am widely ignorant of what the status
of these activities is.

1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.

1.a Reach out: Maybe there is no reason to do this here at all. There
are many others who care for open geospatial data in many different
facets, be it more from the methodological side like  in OKFN
(http://okfn.org/) hands-on like in OpenStreetMap
(http://openstreetmap.org) or metadata-focused as in CKAN
(http://thedatahub.org/).

You will all have contacts and insights into these and other
communities. Share your thoughts. If we then still believe that we
should do something "separate" here, then my first proposal would be to:

2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
that we do not lose "public" and "open".

3. I would like to start work on a White paper explaining the different
aspects of Openness when it comes to geospatial data - er - geodata.

4. Maintain a collection of Open Data initiatives around the world,
public, private and community driven. Just list them, compare them, make
them a searchable resource for those still looking for ways to do it
"right".

There are obviously many more exciting things to do and I don't want to
seize any ideas or exclude others, so let's just get a round of
introductions (again) and ideas how to continue.


Best regards,
Arnulf.


[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Public_Geospatial_Data_Committee
[2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Open_Source_and_Open_Standards

--
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

hamish-2
Seven wrote:
> 0. Whatever already works in this committee should not be interrupted by
> these new ideas. There has been considerable work on creating vector and
> data repositories and services. I am widely ignorant of what the status
> of these activities is.

checkitout-
  http://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/nc_dataset_overview.html


> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
> shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
> that we do not lose "public" and "open".

[maybe Markus remembers where this image originated?]

 "Public Geodata: State collected geographic information is public property"

I think that sums up well the point of the prior focus of the group.


best,
Hamish


ps- what's up in New Zealand: the gov't's geospatial office has released
much of the countries geodata under CC-By-* license; efforts are underway
to upload it in a sane and managed way to OpenStreetMap and its forks:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ
(the gov't is even helping to fund that)
much of the data can be gotten from http://www.koordiantes.com
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata

public_geodata.png (118K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Puneet Kishor
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl
(resending, after subscribing to the list)

On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
> shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
> that we do not lose "public" and "open".

        "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
        "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public

Both may or may not overlap.

Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data Committee."


--
Puneet Kishor
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Arnulf Christl-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
> (resending, after subscribing to the list)

Thanks Puneet.

> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>
> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>
> Both may or may not overlap.
>
> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
> Committee."

It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
"geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
in many cases from
* "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
off"
to
* "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
paid for already".

NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
wrong):

1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
2. They went a bit digital.
3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.

Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
can help nudge them along towards 5+.

Cheers,
Arnulf

> -- Puneet Kishor _______________________________________________
> Geodata mailing list [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>


- --
Making sense with your spatial data
http://www.metaspatial.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAWd4gACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b1y5ACeMo7Hk2Xr1EiUHnfLXHgoeyI3
blcAn3gSXtsmkTCy6XsjN967jEQ0cvHz
=1yWa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Matthias Müller-2
Interesting discussion!

What about choosing the word "Free" for "public and open"? There's
already a good concept for free software which can be adapted for free
geodata:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Important notice: "'free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To
understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,'
not as in 'free beer'."

A program is free software if the program's users have the four
essential freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So geodata is completely "free" if the following conditions apply:

1. The freedom to use the data, for any purpose (freedom 0). (Here a
precondition would be public access -  the ability to fing and get the data)
2. The freedom to study the data, and change it so it does fit your
purpose as you wish (freedom 1). (E.g. transform it, or correct errors)
3.  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions (see 2nd
point) to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole
community a chance to benefit from your changes.

 > 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
 > shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make
 > sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
Well, what about "free geodata"?


Cheers,
Matthias

Am 30.07.2012 14:01, schrieb Arnulf Christl:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>> (resending, after subscribing to the list)
>
> Thanks Puneet.
>
>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>>
>> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
>> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>>
>> Both may or may not overlap.
>>
>> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
>> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
>> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
>> Committee."
>
> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
> Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
> in many cases from
> * "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
> off"
> to
> * "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
> paid for already".
>
> NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
> wrong):
>
> 1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
> 2. They went a bit digital.
> 3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
> 4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
> 5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.
>
> Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
> can help nudge them along towards 5+.
>
> Cheers,
> Arnulf
>
>> -- Puneet Kishor _______________________________________________
>> Geodata mailing list [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>>
>
>
> - --
> Making sense with your spatial data
> http://www.metaspatial.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlAWd4gACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b1y5ACeMo7Hk2Xr1EiUHnfLXHgoeyI3
> blcAn3gSXtsmkTCy6XsjN967jEQ0cvHz
> =1yWa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Geodata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>
--
Matthias Müller
Dipl.-Geogr. | Research Associate

Technische Universität Dresden
Geoinformation Systems
01062 Dresden

Phone: +49 351 463-31953
Fax: +49 351 463-35879
Mail: [hidden email]

www: http://tu-dresden.de/fgh/geo/gis


_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Puneet Kishor

On Jul 30, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Matthias Müller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Interesting discussion!
>
> What about choosing the word "Free" for "public and open"? There's already a good concept for free software which can be adapted for free geodata:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html


Good gosh no. The GNU idea of free, which applies to software and not very well to data, is not considered open by many.

Am afraid we might get stuck on the choice of name here, but it is worth giving it some thought. Personally, I would like to see both "public" and "open" included in the conversation, with the clear understanding that they are two separate though perhaps overlapping, in part, concepts.


> Important notice: "'free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
>
> A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
>
> 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So geodata is completely "free" if the following conditions apply:
>
> 1. The freedom to use the data, for any purpose (freedom 0). (Here a precondition would be public access -  the ability to fing and get the data)
> 2. The freedom to study the data, and change it so it does fit your purpose as you wish (freedom 1). (E.g. transform it, or correct errors)
> 3.  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions (see 2nd point) to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
>
> > 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
> > shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make
> > sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
> Well, what about "free geodata"?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Matthias
>
> Am 30.07.2012 14:01, schrieb Arnulf Christl:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>>> (resending, after subscribing to the list)
>>
>> Thanks Puneet.
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>>>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>>>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>>>
>>> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
>>> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>>>
>>> Both may or may not overlap.
>>>
>>> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
>>> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
>>> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
>>> Committee."
>>
>> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
>> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
>> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
>> Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
>> in many cases from
>> * "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
>> off"
>> to
>> * "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
>> paid for already".
>>
>> NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
>> wrong):
>>
>> 1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
>> 2. They went a bit digital.
>> 3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
>> 4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
>> 5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.
>>
>> Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
>> can help nudge them along towards 5+.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arnulf
>> ..

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Matthias Müller-2
Phew, I definitely do not want to go into a battle here, but if the
choice is "open" rather than "free" we probably need a good definition
for the former:

 > "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public"
... probably doesn't suffice.

Btw.: I didn't propose to use GNU for Geodata. It is a compact and
straight forward definition of what is considered "free" and covers
quite a few aspects that I associate with the terms "open" and "public".

Cheers,
Matthias

Am 30.07.2012 15:13, schrieb Mr. Puneet Kishor:

>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Matthias Müller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion!
>>
>> What about choosing the word "Free" for "public and open"? There's already a good concept for free software which can be adapted for free geodata:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
>
>
> Good gosh no. The GNU idea of free, which applies to software and not very well to data, is not considered open by many.
>
> Am afraid we might get stuck on the choice of name here, but it is worth giving it some thought. Personally, I would like to see both "public" and "open" included in the conversation, with the clear understanding that they are two separate though perhaps overlapping, in part, concepts.
>
>
>> Important notice: "'free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
>>
>> A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
>>
>> 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>> 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So geodata is completely "free" if the following conditions apply:
>>
>> 1. The freedom to use the data, for any purpose (freedom 0). (Here a precondition would be public access -  the ability to fing and get the data)
>> 2. The freedom to study the data, and change it so it does fit your purpose as you wish (freedom 1). (E.g. transform it, or correct errors)
>> 3.  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions (see 2nd point) to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
>>
>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
>>> shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make
>>> sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>> Well, what about "free geodata"?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matthias
>>
>> Am 30.07.2012 14:01, schrieb Arnulf Christl:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>>>> (resending, after subscribing to the list)
>>>
>>> Thanks Puneet.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>>>>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>>>>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>>>>
>>>> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
>>>> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>>>>
>>>> Both may or may not overlap.
>>>>
>>>> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
>>>> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
>>>> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
>>>> Committee."
>>>
>>> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
>>> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
>>> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
>>> Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
>>> in many cases from
>>> * "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
>>> off"
>>> to
>>> * "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
>>> paid for already".
>>>
>>> NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
>>> wrong):
>>>
>>> 1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
>>> 2. They went a bit digital.
>>> 3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
>>> 4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
>>> 5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.
>>>
>>> Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
>>> can help nudge them along towards 5+.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arnulf
>>> ..
>
--
Matthias Müller
Dipl.-Geogr. | Research Associate

Technische Universität Dresden
Geoinformation Systems
01062 Dresden

Phone: +49 351 463-31953
Fax: +49 351 463-35879
Mail: [hidden email]

www: http://tu-dresden.de/fgh/geo/gis


_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Jonathan Gray
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl-3
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Arnulf Christl
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.

The Open Definition might be useful:

'The Open Definition sets out principles to define ‘openness’ in
relation to content and data and can be summed up in the statement
that: “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use,
reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement
to attribute and/or share-alike.”'

http://opendefinition.org/

It is mentioned and adopted by numerous organisations, projects, and
policy documents to give a more formal definition of the 'open' in
'open data'.

--
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

David William Bitner
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl


0. Whatever already works in this committee should not be interrupted by
these new ideas. There has been considerable work on creating vector and
data repositories and services. I am widely ignorant of what the status
of these activities is.

Speaking as the Chair of this mostly dormant committee, "Whatever already works" is nothing that you need to worry about. Early on in this committee we made a number of false starts to try to build metadata and data repositories on the Telascience resources and each attempt quickly went nowhere. The difficult thing with geodata is that it gets stale very fast and it takes a *lot* of work to build and maintain. 
 

1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.

Acting as a hub of knowledge around licenses is something that would be extremely valuable for this group and something that should be reasonable to work on.

"Link everything together" seems like an invitation to become stale and irrelevant again very fast. I do agree in creating the linkages, but we need to make sure that it is done in a way that recognizes it will never be comprehensive.
 

1.a Reach out: Maybe there is no reason to do this here at all. There
are many others who care for open geospatial data in many different
facets, be it more from the methodological side like  in OKFN
(http://okfn.org/) hands-on like in OpenStreetMap
(http://openstreetmap.org) or metadata-focused as in CKAN
(http://thedatahub.org/).

You will all have contacts and insights into these and other
communities. Share your thoughts. If we then still believe that we
should do something "separate" here, then my first proposal would be to:

2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
that we do not lose "public" and "open".

This has functionally been what we have done since the inception of this committee. I do not believe that we need to drop the more formal full name, but that it is accepted to commonly use the shorthand of "Geodata Committee".

 

3. I would like to start work on a White paper explaining the different
aspects of Openness when it comes to geospatial data - er - geodata.

Wonderful! I would love to help.

4. Maintain a collection of Open Data initiatives around the world,
public, private and community driven. Just list them, compare them, make
them a searchable resource for those still looking for ways to do it
"right".

I think this is a great idea, but one that we need to make sure that there are enough people to curate and maintain this list such that it can become something people can count on. This cannot be successful as an initiative by one person, this needs to be community driven.


I am excited to see renewed interest in this committee. As I have tried to point out periodically, I am happy to continue in my role as Chair of this group in facilitating whatever efforts that there is time and energy to work on. I do not, however, necessarily have the energy to really seek out and drive new initiatives (as evidenced by the overall silence of this group the last few years). If there is anyone who really has that drive, I am very happy to pass on the baton -- please let me know.

Cheers,

David

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Markus Neteler
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>...
> Early on in this committee
> we made a number of false starts to try to build metadata and data
> repositories on the Telascience resources and each attempt quickly went
> nowhere. The difficult thing with geodata is that it gets stale very fast
> and it takes a *lot* of work to build and maintain.

Agreed, however I do believe that it would be *crucial* to have
a central (geonetwork?) repository in order to replace lists like

http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Global_datasets

Running a web harvester would be even better to enrich such a
metadata repo.

Best
Markus

--
http://tinyurl.com/tree-four-freedoms
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Brent Wood
In reply to this post by David William Bitner
The data licence issue is a hot one for me & my organisation.

Given the wide interest & use of CC3 for data, despite some wide held concerns, & the intent by CC to make the forthcoming CC4 more "data friendly", is there a role for OSGEO to have input into the CC4 development process from a geodata perspective?

Is anyone else interested?


Cheers,

   Brent Wood

--- On Tue, 7/31/12, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: David William Bitner <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geodata] Rebooting this committee
To: "Seven (aka Arnulf)" <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:17 AM



0. Whatever already works in this committee should not be interrupted by
these new ideas. There has been considerable work on creating vector and
data repositories and services. I am widely ignorant of what the status
of these activities is.

Speaking as the Chair of this mostly dormant committee, "Whatever already works" is nothing that you need to worry about. Early on in this committee we made a number of false starts to try to build metadata and data repositories on the Telascience resources and each attempt quickly went nowhere. The difficult thing with geodata is that it gets stale very fast and it takes a *lot* of work to build and maintain. 
 

1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.

Acting as a hub of knowledge around licenses is something that would be extremely valuable for this group and something that should be reasonable to work on.

"Link everything together" seems like an invitation to become stale and irrelevant again very fast. I do agree in creating the linkages, but we need to make sure that it is done in a way that recognizes it will never be comprehensive.
 

1.a Reach out: Maybe there is no reason to do this here at all. There
are many others who care for open geospatial data in many different
facets, be it more from the methodological side like  in OKFN
(http://okfn.org/) hands-on like in OpenStreetMap
(http://openstreetmap.org) or metadata-focused as in CKAN
(http://thedatahub.org/).

You will all have contacts and insights into these and other
communities. Share your thoughts. If we then still believe that we
should do something "separate" here, then my first proposal would be to:

2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
that we do not lose "public" and "open".

This has functionally been what we have done since the inception of this committee. I do not believe that we need to drop the more formal full name, but that it is accepted to commonly use the shorthand of "Geodata Committee".

 

3. I would like to start work on a White paper explaining the different
aspects of Openness when it comes to geospatial data - er - geodata.

Wonderful! I would love to help.

4. Maintain a collection of Open Data initiatives around the world,
public, private and community driven. Just list them, compare them, make
them a searchable resource for those still looking for ways to do it
"right".

I think this is a great idea, but one that we need to make sure that there are enough people to curate and maintain this list such that it can become something people can count on. This cannot be successful as an initiative by one person, this needs to be community driven.


I am excited to see renewed interest in this committee. As I have tried to point out periodically, I am happy to continue in my role as Chair of this group in facilitating whatever efforts that there is time and energy to work on. I do not, however, necessarily have the energy to really seek out and drive new initiatives (as evidenced by the overall silence of this group the last few years). If there is anyone who really has that drive, I am very happy to pass on the baton -- please let me know.

Cheers,

David

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
Geodata@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Brent Wood
In reply to this post by Markus Neteler
How about such a Geonetwork node harvesting WMS/WFS services for a list of geodata web servers?

We have just funded Sourcepole to develop a QGIS plugin which harvests OGC OWS web service URL's from our web site (to make it easier to access & use data we provide) & I have funding to enhance this tool, including the possible development of a CSW harvester for OWS sources.

Being able to point such a tool at an OSGEO Geonetwork catalog of such services to pick sources/layers provides real data sharing, discovery & access.

Brent Wood


--- On Tue, 7/31/12, Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Markus Neteler <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geodata] Rebooting this committee
To: "David William Bitner" <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email], "Seven (aka Arnulf)" <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 2:53 AM

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM, David William Bitner <bitner@...> wrote:
>...
> Early on in this committee
> we made a number of false starts to try to build metadata and data
> repositories on the Telascience resources and each attempt quickly went
> nowhere. The difficult thing with geodata is that it gets stale very fast
> and it takes a *lot* of work to build and maintain.

Agreed, however I do believe that it would be *crucial* to have
a central (geonetwork?) repository in order to replace lists like

http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Global_datasets

Running a web harvester would be even better to enrich such a
metadata repo.

Best
Markus

--
http://tinyurl.com/tree-four-freedoms
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
Geodata@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Puneet Kishor
In reply to this post by Brent Wood

On Jul 30, 2012, at 1:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> The data licence issue is a hot one for me & my organisation.
>
> Given the wide interest & use of CC3 for data, despite some wide held concerns, & the intent by CC to make the forthcoming CC4 more "data friendly", is there a role for OSGEO to have input into the CC4 development process from a geodata perspective?
>
> Is anyone else interested?


Yes.


> ..





--
Puneet Kishor
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Andrew Turner
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
> knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
> everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
> lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.
>
> 1.a Reach out: Maybe there is no reason to do this here at all. There
> are many others who care for open geospatial data in many different
> facets, be it more from the methodological side like  in OKFN
> (http://okfn.org/) hands-on like in OpenStreetMap
> (http://openstreetmap.org) or metadata-focused as in CKAN
> (http://thedatahub.org/).

I think there is a tremendous opportunity here to understand and
provide guidance around concepts, technology and advocacy of general
open/free Geodata. There are domain specific issues as well as just
different communities to engage with than these existing organizations
may be focusing on.

>
> You will all have contacts and insights into these and other
> communities. Share your thoughts. If we then still believe that we
> should do something "separate" here, then my first proposal would be to:
>
> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
> shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make sure
> that we do not lose "public" and "open".

I like the general "Geodata" committee - it's already part of OSGeo,
so it's implied that it will be free and/or open etc. The discussion
here has been great and exactly the type of guidance and best practice
this committee can evolve and promote. However I think including it in
the name is repetitive and is subject to just the same confusion we
want to help clarify.

>
> 3. I would like to start work on a White paper explaining the different
> aspects of Openness when it comes to geospatial data - er - geodata.

Indeed, this would be valuable - particularly from the Geodata
specific side and also connect with other relevant guidelines such as
8 Open Government Data Principles
[https://public.resource.org/8_principles.html]

There are a lot of additional White papers that would be useful such
as archiving and preservation, privacy of open geodata, what you need
to know about licensing (imagine some simple explanations and
aggregated insights into CC vs. ODbL vs. PD vs....)

>
> 4. Maintain a collection of Open Data initiatives around the world,
> public, private and community driven. Just list them, compare them, make
> them a searchable resource for those still looking for ways to do it
> "right".

I think this should be a secondary goal. There have been many
initiatives to create catalogues and catalogues of catalogues and they
always go out of date so quickly. I believe developing longer-lived
principles and guidelines is the most important and then promoting
exemplar sites is great to highlight these principles in practice
without trying to be exhaustive.

The community of open data and open geodata is much different now than
it was even 2 or 4 years ago. What used to be interesting but unproven
ideas are now common place as many local, regional and national
governments provide open data; global projects such as OpenStreetMap
have become generally accepted; and even commercial enterprises
embrace and promote open geodata. We can focus on making it better
instead of just making it happen. I'm excited.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Scot Wilcoxon
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:40 +0100, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.

I think the concept that you're looking for is a "semantic web".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

A bunch of buckets of data, and you define the characteristics of the buckets so software can use (and display) the info.

* You have a license object which defines the characteristics of a license. Probably defined in something like XML.
* You define a license (identifier="CC-BY-SA", name="Creative Commons ... etc", restrictions="share-derivatives,attribute", etc...) -- except you probably use XML.
* You have a data object which defines the characteristics of some data, and this includes the license (identifier).
* You define data using the data object characteristics.

If a data definition is available through a URL, inside that definition will be the relevant other objects, including the URL of the data object definition, the license identifier ("CC-BY-SA"), and the URL of the definition of the license.  Similarly, the license includes the URL of the license object which defines all the license fields.
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Arnulf Christl-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/31/2012 12:23 AM, Scot Wilcoxon wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:40 +0100, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>>
>> 1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
>> knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives
>> and link everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a
>> catalog but a lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to
>> find.
>
> I think the concept that you're looking for is a "semantic web".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

Scot, sure thing but I wanted to avoid the term because people
associate all kinds of things with Semantic Web that I want to avoid
at this stage. :-)

> A bunch of buckets of data, and you define the characteristics of
> the buckets so software can use (and display) the info.

The "bucket" context is taken from David Weinberger's "Everything is
Misceallaneous" [1] and my intention was to purposefully not make it
technically sound yet but leave as a Wiki until we know where this is
going. At the same time the semantic extensions for Mediawiki are
evolving and might eventually do the job you suggest without much help
from our side.

Thanks,
Arnulf

[1] http://evident.com/

> * You have a license object which defines the characteristics of a
> license. Probably defined in something like XML. * You define a
> license (identifier="CC-BY-SA", name="Creative Commons ... etc",
> restrictions="share-derivatives,attribute", etc...) -- except you
> probably use XML. * You have a data object which defines the
> characteristics of some data, and this includes the license
> (identifier). * You define data using the data object
> characteristics.
>
> If a data definition is available through a URL, inside that
> definition will be the relevant other objects, including the URL of
> the data object definition, the license identifier ("CC-BY-SA"),
> and the URL of the definition of the license.  Similarly, the
> license includes the URL of the license object which defines all
> the license fields.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Geodata mailing
> list [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>


- --
Making sense with your spatial data
http://www.metaspatial.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAX1/YACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b1M7wCeLSZ5UhMsdIKQ+LJFZmRdeDIJ
PdcAn2j/hKXSO+iGHZcToTTggEXzRCPc
=FsNj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Jonathan Gray
Regarding the open license identifier idea, you might like this:

http://blog.okfn.org/2012/02/16/announcing-the-open-definition-licenses-service/

Regarding a bunch of 'buckets' of data, I wonder whether CKAN or
TheDataHub.org might be of any value for this? It already has the Open
Definition licenses service built into it, and has lots of geodata
aggregated from different sources around the world.

http://thedatahub.org/
http://ckan.org/

All the best,

Jonathan

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Arnulf Christl
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/31/2012 12:23 AM, Scot Wilcoxon wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:40 +0100, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
>>> knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives
>>> and link everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a
>>> catalog but a lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to
>>> find.
>>
>> I think the concept that you're looking for is a "semantic web".
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
>
> Scot, sure thing but I wanted to avoid the term because people
> associate all kinds of things with Semantic Web that I want to avoid
> at this stage. :-)
>
>> A bunch of buckets of data, and you define the characteristics of
>> the buckets so software can use (and display) the info.
>
> The "bucket" context is taken from David Weinberger's "Everything is
> Misceallaneous" [1] and my intention was to purposefully not make it
> technically sound yet but leave as a Wiki until we know where this is
> going. At the same time the semantic extensions for Mediawiki are
> evolving and might eventually do the job you suggest without much help
> from our side.
>
> Thanks,
> Arnulf
>
> [1] http://evident.com/
>
>> * You have a license object which defines the characteristics of a
>> license. Probably defined in something like XML. * You define a
>> license (identifier="CC-BY-SA", name="Creative Commons ... etc",
>> restrictions="share-derivatives,attribute", etc...) -- except you
>> probably use XML. * You have a data object which defines the
>> characteristics of some data, and this includes the license
>> (identifier). * You define data using the data object
>> characteristics.
>>
>> If a data definition is available through a URL, inside that
>> definition will be the relevant other objects, including the URL of
>> the data object definition, the license identifier ("CC-BY-SA"),
>> and the URL of the definition of the license.  Similarly, the
>> license includes the URL of the license object which defines all
>> the license fields.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Geodata mailing
>> list [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>>
>
>
> - --
> Making sense with your spatial data
> http://www.metaspatial.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlAX1/YACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b1M7wCeLSZ5UhMsdIKQ+LJFZmRdeDIJ
> PdcAn2j/hKXSO+iGHZcToTTggEXzRCPc
> =FsNj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Geodata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata



--
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee

Kent Mewhort
Hi Everyone,

I just joined this list earlier today after being directed towards this thread.  I'm actually working on a project to accomplish some of what's being described with respect to license metadata.

Specifically, I'm trying to describe the core features of data licenses in a machine readable format (JSON).  This is a first step towards several other projects in the works to help users view the core license terms of any data license in a CC "Legal Deed"-style format, as well as to compare the compatibility and risks of different data/content/software licenses.

You can best view the beta JSON format that I've come up with at the following link, with a few licenses already filled-out:  http://clip-test.cippic.ca/tools/license_editor/index.html.  It's backwards compatible with the Open Definition Project (with the idea to reintegrate in the future).  I'd really appreciate any comments, especially w.r.t. any important license aspects anyone thinks are missing.

I'll also directly post an example for ODC-By-1.0:
  1. {
  2.    "id": "ODC-By-1.0",
  3.    "title": "ODC Attribution License v.1.0",
  4.    "url": "http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/",
  5.    "maintainer": "Open Data Commons",
  6.    "domain_content": false,
  7.    "domain_data": true,
  8.    "domain_software": false,
  9.    "is_okd_compliant": true,
  10.    "is_osi_compliant": false,
  11.    "is_dfcw_compliant": false,
  12.    "status": "active",
  13.    "rights":
  14.    {
  15.        "right_to_use_and_reproduce": true,
  16.        "right_to_modify": true,
  17.        "right_to_distribute": true,
  18.        "covers_copyright": true,
  19.        "covers_neighbouring_rights": true,
  20.        "covers_sgdrs": true,
  21.        "covers_moral_rights": true,
  22.        "covers_trademarks": false,
  23.        "covers_patents": false,
  24.        "covers_circumventions": false,
  25.        "prohibits_commercial_use": false,
  26.        "prohibits_tpms": false,
  27.        "prohibits_tpms_unless_parallel": false
  28.    },
  29.    "obligations":
  30.    {
  31.        "obligation_notice": true,
  32.        "obligation_modifiable_form": false,
  33.        "obligation_attribution_flexible": true,
  34.        "obligation_attribution_specific": false,
  35.        "obligation_attribution_specific_details": "",
  36.        "obligation_copyleft": false
  37.    },
  38.    "copyleft":
  39.    {
  40.    },
  41.    "sublicensing":
  42.    {
  43.        "sublicense_any": false,
  44.        "sublicense_future_versions": false,
  45.        "sublicense_other": ""
  46.    },
  47.    "termination":
  48.    {
  49.        "termination_automatic": true,
  50.        "termination_discretionary": false,
  51.        "termination_reinstatement": true
  52.    },
  53.    "license_changes":
  54.    {
  55.        "license_changes_effective_immediately": false
  56.    },
  57.    "disclaimers":
  58.    {
  59.        "disclaimer_warranty": true,
  60.        "disclaimer_liability": true,
  61.        "disclaimer_indemnity": false,
  62.        "warranty_noninfringement": false
  63.    },
  64.    "conflict_of_laws":
  65.    {
  66.        "law_of": "forum",
  67.        "forum_of": "unspecified"
  68.    }
  69. }

Kent

--
Kent Mewhort
Staff Lawyer
CIPPIC, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic
University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law
57 Louis Pasteur St.
Ottawa, Ontario  K1N 6N5

Ph:  (613)562-5800 (ext.2556)

Fax: (613)562-5417



On 31/07/12 01:43 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Regarding the open license identifier idea, you might like this:
>
> http://blog.okfn.org/2012/02/16/announcing-the-open-definition-licenses-service/
>
> Regarding a bunch of 'buckets' of data, I wonder whether CKAN or
> TheDataHub.org might be of any value for this? It already has the Open
> Definition licenses service built into it, and has lots of geodata
> aggregated from different sources around the world.
>
> http://thedatahub.org/
> http://ckan.org/
>
> All the best,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Arnulf Christl
> [hidden email] wrote:

On 07/31/2012 12:23 AM, Scot Wilcoxon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:40 +0100, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
>>>> knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives
>>>> and link everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a
>>>> catalog but a lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to
>>>> find.
>>>
>>> I think the concept that you're looking for is a "semantic web".
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

Scot, sure thing but I wanted to avoid the term because people
associate all kinds of things with Semantic Web that I want to avoid
at this stage. :-)

>>> A bunch of buckets of data, and you define the characteristics of
>>> the buckets so software can use (and display) the info.

The "bucket" context is taken from David Weinberger's "Everything is
Misceallaneous" [1] and my intention was to purposefully not make it
technically sound yet but leave as a Wiki until we know where this is
going. At the same time the semantic extensions for Mediawiki are
evolving and might eventually do the job you suggest without much help
from our side.

Thanks,
Arnulf

[1] http://evident.com/

>>> * You have a license object which defines the characteristics of a
>>> license. Probably defined in something like XML. * You define a
>>> license (identifier="CC-BY-SA", name="Creative Commons ... etc",
>>> restrictions="share-derivatives,attribute", etc...) -- except you
>>> probably use XML. * You have a data object which defines the
>>> characteristics of some data, and this includes the license
>>> (identifier). * You define data using the data object
>>> characteristics.
>>>
>>> If a data definition is available through a URL, inside that
>>> definition will be the relevant other objects, including the URL of
>>> the data object definition, the license identifier ("CC-BY-SA"),
>>> and the URL of the definition of the license.  Similarly, the
>>> license includes the URL of the license object which defines all
>>> the license fields.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Geodata mailing
>>> list [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>>>


>> _______________________________________________
>> Geodata mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rebooting this committee [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman-2
In reply to this post by Scot Wilcoxon
Re: [Geodata] Rebooting this committee [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] While current semantic work (e.g. RDF, SKOS, LinkedData etc) is very important and will be of immense benefit to us, there are many issues that are also relevant, including:

  • spatial discovery metadata and catalogues / registries;
  • open spatial standards underpinning our view of the world from the ‘universe of discourse’ through to detailed ‘application profiles’ that implement logical data models for a given domain. There is a lot of work happening within this space, e.g. with GeoSciML, WaterML 2.0, CSML 3.0, etc;
  • the semantic relationships between similar concepts from different domains (‘application profiles’);
  • authoritative vocabulary services, persistent ids etc;
  • managing IP, access constraints, licensing, CC, etc;
  • managing data provenance, e.g. If I publish a scientific paper, what data was used to underpin the analysis communicated in the paper. This could relate to specific gridded datasets and what observation data was current within the database at the time that the grids were created;


Bruce



On 31/07/12 9:23 AM, "Scot Wilcoxon" <scot@...> wrote:

On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:40 +0100, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

 
1. My suggestion is to also use this committee as a hub to build
knowledge around licenses, maintain a repository of initiatives and link
everything together. Not so much like hard metadata in a catalog but a
lot looser, more like a big bucket with goodies to find.

I think the concept that you're looking for is a "semantic web".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

A bunch of buckets of data, and you define the characteristics of the buckets so software can use (and display) the info.

* You have a license object which defines the characteristics of a license. Probably defined in something like XML.
* You define a license (identifier="CC-BY-SA", name="Creative Commons ... etc", restrictions="share-derivatives,attribute", etc...) -- except you probably use XML.
* You have a data object which defines the characteristics of some data, and this includes the license (identifier).
* You define data using the data object characteristics.

If a data definition is available through a URL, inside that definition will be the relevant other objects, including the URL of the data object definition, the license identifier ("CC-BY-SA"), and the URL of the definition of the license.  Similarly, the license includes the URL of the license object which defines all the license fields.

_______________________________________________
Geodata mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata