Added W3C and IETF to list of data standards bodies #577

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 23, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@ftrotter
Contributor

ftrotter commented Jan 19, 2017

Hi.
You have a list of standards bodies that purport to meet the definition of voluntary, consensus standards bodies (presumably honoring circular A-199 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119) that also actually provide "convenient, modifiable, and open formats that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched" as per your own principles of open data...

Yet you have failed include IETF and W3C which provide the most commonly used open data standards available. Specifically:

IETF -> JSON https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
IETF -> CSV https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt
W3C -> XML https://www.w3.org/XML/
W3C -> HTML https://www.w3.org/html/

Note how I just linked to the open and freely available standards that are easily the four most common formats used to release open data using open standards...

It might also be possible to show the standards bodies that you do recommend leverage JSON and XML. For standards like this one for instance:
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=69209

But I cannot do that, because I cannot afford to buy everyone a copy of the license.

I mean. The irony here just writes itself.

Soooo, not sure if this was like a small technical oversite in the website... or more like a massive, colossal lack of backbone by the people running this project... but if its just the former and not the later... here is a github pull request that fixes it.

I also made them bullet lists for readability.. I did not even realize you had a link to ISO until reading this sourcecode...
-FT

Added W3C and IETF to list of data standards bodies
Hi.
You have a list of standards bodies that purport to meet the definition of voluntary, consensus standards bodies (presumably honoring circular A-199 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119) that  also actually provide "convenient, modifiable, and open formats that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched" as per your own principles of open data...

Yet you have failed include IETF and W3C which provide the most commonly used open data standards available. Specifically:

IETF -> JSON https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
IETF -> CSV https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt
W3C -> XML https://www.w3.org/XML/
W3C -> HTML https://www.w3.org/html/

Note how I just linked to the open and freely available standards that are easily the four most common formats used to release open data using open standards...

It might also be possible to show the standards bodies that you do recommend leverage JSON and XML. For standards like this one for instance:
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=69209

But I cannot do that, because I cannot afford to buy everyone a copy of the license.

I mean. The irony here just writes itself.

Soooo, not sure if this was like a small technical oversite in the website... or more like a massive, colossal lack of backbone by the people running this project... but if its just the former and not the later... here is a github pull request that fixes it.

I also made them bullet lists for readability.. I did not even realize you had a link to ISO until reading this sourcecode...
-FT

@JJediny JJediny merged commit 08f58b0 into project-open-data:master Aug 23, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@JJediny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JJediny

JJediny Aug 23, 2017

Member

@ftrotter there are 3 federal FTEs that manage project open data and data.gov (all of it)... and we're 80% on other duties as assigned.

a small technical oversite in the website... or more like a massive, colossal lack of backbone by the people running this project... but if its just the former and not the later... here is a github pull request that fixes it.

former... thx 🥇

Member

JJediny commented Aug 23, 2017

@ftrotter there are 3 federal FTEs that manage project open data and data.gov (all of it)... and we're 80% on other duties as assigned.

a small technical oversite in the website... or more like a massive, colossal lack of backbone by the people running this project... but if its just the former and not the later... here is a github pull request that fixes it.

former... thx 🥇

@ftrotter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ftrotter

ftrotter Oct 26, 2017

Contributor

I guessed as much. Which is why I chose patience rather than further flaming. (Its very hard for me, I missed the day they taught patience at kindergarten)

I now have a link that I can refer to in FOIA requests and other complaints that makes it clear that CSV is an open standard, while Excel files are not. An I now have guidance from the CIO Open Data policy which backs that idea up.

This is no small thing, and you have my applause.

I am also honored that you chose to actually accept my pull request rather than just fixing the problem yourselves. I know it is not really that important, but it makes me feel good to have this issue resolved in such an open, collaborative and automated manner.

Thank you, all glorious 3x20% FTEs of you, very much.

-FT

Contributor

ftrotter commented Oct 26, 2017

I guessed as much. Which is why I chose patience rather than further flaming. (Its very hard for me, I missed the day they taught patience at kindergarten)

I now have a link that I can refer to in FOIA requests and other complaints that makes it clear that CSV is an open standard, while Excel files are not. An I now have guidance from the CIO Open Data policy which backs that idea up.

This is no small thing, and you have my applause.

I am also honored that you chose to actually accept my pull request rather than just fixing the problem yourselves. I know it is not really that important, but it makes me feel good to have this issue resolved in such an open, collaborative and automated manner.

Thank you, all glorious 3x20% FTEs of you, very much.

-FT

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment