(Bare with me for one of my rare English posts, hoping to touch a nerve in a broader community by changing the language.)
2012 is closing down with its typical previews, round-ups and some surprising good (local) news. And while such is not entirely my style, I feel myself pulling some last-months musings into an end-year sermon... Finally, reading these rather grim visions of the current state of affairs in the world-web-of-information, I'm desperately wanting to sketch up a road to hope and better times...
Techies will remember when the "free software" movement had to make the important semantics distinction between "free as in freedom" (libre) versus "free as in free beer" (gratis). I think it's time to make an equal clear statement about "open".
Before I do however. Some nuance and contradiction is in order. Because we do need open cans.
Trust me. Surely this last year (my first year as a public servant) I've seen my share of closed information systems, and I've started calling them "bases where data goes to die" rather then databases.
Surely getting the lid of the can is a thing we need, and it is in many ways the needed enabler or even the conditio sine qua non.
And if you can spare the time: do read up on the vision of Karl Popper on that.
The ambition behind "open" in this sense is to change your attitude in being the sole and indisputable source of wisdom and authority in any field, and to embrace the knowledge, better still even practically design for a future where the current center of gravity might be shifting. Yeah, falsifiability is that other Popper-word we should learn.
Techies could link this to the true nature of "open systems" - as it was described in the "Axioms of Web architecture". I vividly remember reading about "The Test of Independent Invention" and experiencing one of the bigger "aha" moments in my life. Do let it sip in.
The "literature" or "narrative" way of looking at it is putting out your open data as an "open ended novel" - deliberately tickling the reader's own imagination to complete the story.
There is more to tell (there always is, and would that be proving my point?) about how we should translate this into practical guidelines and techniques for open data. We've even been working on that somewhat already but my guess (and yeah I'm often guilty of wishful thinking) is that 2013 will see many good resolutions in this area. I hope this small contribution to the discussion helps us getting our "open ambitions" right.
2012 is closing down with its typical previews, round-ups and some surprising good (local) news. And while such is not entirely my style, I feel myself pulling some last-months musings into an end-year sermon... Finally, reading these rather grim visions of the current state of affairs in the world-web-of-information, I'm desperately wanting to sketch up a road to hope and better times...
Concerning open. Openness. In its many forms.
My point today is that when we're using the word "open" these days in any of its conjunctions with the noun of your preference: society, data, source code, media, identity, web, culture, ... (or even VLD - sorry for the silly local politics joke) we often do it in a reflex to align with the mainstream fashion, but are we getting or addressing the same (correct?) ambition behind the word?Techies will remember when the "free software" movement had to make the important semantics distinction between "free as in freedom" (libre) versus "free as in free beer" (gratis). I think it's time to make an equal clear statement about "open".
"open as in open cans" versus "open as in open ended"
open cans
Many see "open" just in the sense of accessible. The strict counter-part of closed.Look Sir: "The door is open".Allow me to call this: "the wikileaks kind of open". And allow me to lure you into a different open.
I've opened the can. Quite ready to spill the beans, now!
Before I do however. Some nuance and contradiction is in order. Because we do need open cans.
Trust me. Surely this last year (my first year as a public servant) I've seen my share of closed information systems, and I've started calling them "bases where data goes to die" rather then databases.
Surely getting the lid of the can is a thing we need, and it is in many ways the needed enabler or even the conditio sine qua non.
open ended
But is not the goal. Specially when we talk about open data, and surely when we talk about the obligation for governmental organizations in that area, we should remember that the goal is to have open access to data be a supporting means to the goal of an open society.And if you can spare the time: do read up on the vision of Karl Popper on that.
The ambition behind "open" in this sense is to change your attitude in being the sole and indisputable source of wisdom and authority in any field, and to embrace the knowledge, better still even practically design for a future where the current center of gravity might be shifting. Yeah, falsifiability is that other Popper-word we should learn.
Techies could link this to the true nature of "open systems" - as it was described in the "Axioms of Web architecture". I vividly remember reading about "The Test of Independent Invention" and experiencing one of the bigger "aha" moments in my life. Do let it sip in.
The "literature" or "narrative" way of looking at it is putting out your open data as an "open ended novel" - deliberately tickling the reader's own imagination to complete the story.
There is more to tell (there always is, and would that be proving my point?) about how we should translate this into practical guidelines and techniques for open data. We've even been working on that somewhat already but my guess (and yeah I'm often guilty of wishful thinking) is that 2013 will see many good resolutions in this area. I hope this small contribution to the discussion helps us getting our "open ambitions" right.
