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/
