|FROM ||From: "Inker, Evan"
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of "Open Data Formats "
|From owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com Wed Apr 5 12:26:21 2006
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k35GQJVv022098
for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:26:21 -0400
Received: (from majordomo-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k35GQJb1022097
for hangout-outgoings; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:26:19 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: majordomo set sender to owner-hangout-at-nylxs.com using -f
Received: from mail57.messagelabs.com (mail57.messagelabs.com [184.108.40.206])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id k35GQAtU022093
for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:26:18 -0400
X-StarScan-Version: 220.127.116.11; banners=-,-,-
Received: (qmail 28269 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2006 16:30:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO w2gw-ldn02.gam.com) (18.104.22.168)
by server-4.tower-57.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2006 16:30:37 -0000
Received: from ntas-ldn15.gam.com (unverified) by w2gw-ldn02.gam.com
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id
for ; Wed,
5 Apr 2006 17:30:35 +0100
Received: by ntas-ldn15.gam.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id
; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:30:35 +0100
From: "Inker, Evan"
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of "Open Data Formats "
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:30:22 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined"
Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of "Open Data Formats"
Wednesday, April 05 2006 -at- 06:46 AM EDT
I received an email yesterday pointing me to a bill, introduced on March 27,
that would require all Executive branch agencies in the state of Minnesota
to "use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a
project do not make it technically impossible to do this." The text of the
bill is focused specifically on "open data formats," and would amend the
existing statute that establishes the authority of the Office of Enterprise
Technology (OET), and the duties of the states Chief Information Officer.
While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition
of "open standards" that it contains would be conducive to open source
implementations of open standards. The text of the affected sections of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16E, showing the amendments proposed, can be
The fact that such a bill has been introduced is significant in a number of
respects. First, the debate over open formats will now be ongoing in two
U.S. states rather than one. Second, if the bill is successful, the
Minnesota CIO will be required to enforce a law requiring the use of open
formats, rather than be forced to justify his or her authority to do so.
Third, the size of the market share that can be won (or lost) depending upon
a vendor's compliance with open standards will increase. And finally, if
two states successfully adopt and implement open data format policies, other
states will be more inclined to follow.
The amendment, and the statutory framework in which it exists, provides an
interesting contrast to the open standards policy adopted by the
Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD) in many respects. For
example, it appears from the existing text of the statute that the Minnesota
OET already has clear authority to mandate the use of open data formats,
reading in part as follows:
When state agencies have need for the same or similar public data, the chief
information officer, in coordination with the affected agencies, shall
manage the most efficient and cost-effective method of producing and storing
data for or sharing data between those agencies. The development of this
information architecture must include the establishment of standards and
guidelines to be followed by state agencies. The office shall ensure
compliance with the architecture.
Second, the proposed amendment contains an extremely detailed (and rather
eclectic) definition of "open standards," including not only the traditional
concepts of availability to all on reasonable and nondiscriminatory ("RAND")
terms, but a good deal more besides. For example, it requires that all
permitted standards must permit royalty free implementation, and also
includes a number of requirements that are far more detailed than would
normally be found in the description of an open standard, but which might be
agreed upon as necessary by the members of a working group developing a
standard. The following is one example taken from the proposed definition
of an "open standard" found in the amendment: "[An open standard] is
documented, so that anyone can write software that can read and interpret
the complete semantics of any data file stored in the data format." (I've
included the full text of the proposed definition at the end of this blog
In addition to the very restrictive definition of open standards and open
data formats, the amendment is also intolerant of making exceptions,
For a particular project involving the access, storage, or transfer of data,
a restricted data format may be chosen when satisfaction of essential
project requirements precludes the use of an open data format. Neither the
current storage format of previously collected data, nor current utilization
of specific software products, is a sufficient reason, in absence of other
specific overriding functional requirements, to use a restricted format;
Moreover, the amendment would require periodic review of all "existing data
stored in a restricted format, to which the state of Minnesota does not own
the rights, every four years to determine if the format has become open and,
if not, whether an appropriate open standard exists;" The amendment, if
enacted, would therefore impose a very tight collar on what types of
software could be purchased and used.
On its face, the amendment is vendor neutral. It does, however, include one
provision that may have been directed at Microsoft, which has at times been
criticized for adding proprietary extensions to otherwise
standards-compliant product features. That provision is found in the
definition of an "open standard," and requires that if a standard, "allows
extensions, ensures that all extensions of the data format are themselves
documented and have the other characteristics of an open data format;"
There are a number of other interesting points that I note in reading the
amendment at the Minnesota site, one being that the state legislation portal
is set up to provide data on a bill's sponsors and current status -
something that is sadly lacking in Massachusetts. There also appear to be a
number of differences between the responsibilities and authority of the CIO
in Minnesota, as compared to Massachusetts, that Peter Quinn might have
appreciated. I may look more deeply into those differences and return to
them in a future entry.
Curiously, I have been able to find out almost nothing on the Web about the
amendment, indicating that thus far it has received little public notice.
The news item submission (written by the submitter) that pointed me to the
bill, however, reads in part as follows:
A consortium of Minnesota businesses and citizens has moved to put forward
legislation that promises to assist the State in overcoming the negative
effects of time, innovation and the market. Referred to as the Open Data
Formats Bill, House File 3971 defines the means by which Minnesota could
take control over how it stores information so as to not be bound,
technically or legally, to anything other than its own technical objectives.
The Bill is an attempt to counter the fact that searches on the State
website display information that is primarily stored in formats owned by
vendors... that could go out of business, get acquired, or turn into the
next Enron. It is also a response to what some refer to as the 'eight track
tape effect' where information is stored in a way that is both popular and
looks permanent, but then is quickly replaced by newer technologies. In some
instances the information has been lost forever.
The Bill is not biased towards any one technology and advances a policy
where at all times and in all instances the State has the ability and legal
right to review, fix or improve the information it uses to conduct business.
The Bill is not expected to increase State spending on technology. It is,
nonetheless, expected to receive stiff opposition despite improving
competition for State contracts, enhancing the ability of Minnesotans to
access State services and data, and improving communication between State
I will keep an eye on this new bill and report further as additional
information becomes available. For now, however, it is significant to note
that the debate over open data formats has now begun in a second state. It
will be interesting to watch how the forces align, and the discussion
becomes focused as the process moves forward.
The full text of the two new statute sections appears below.
For further blog entries on ODF, click here
subscribe to the free Consortium Standards Bulletin
(and remember to Buy Your Books at Biff's)
Language to be added to Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, section 16E.03,
(f) "Open standards" means specifications for the encoding and transfer of
computer data that:
(1) is free for all to implement and use in perpetuity, with no royalty or
(2) has no restrictions on the use of data stored in the format;
(3) has no restrictions on the creation of software that stores, transmits,
receives, or accesses data codified in such way;
(4) has a specification available for all to read, in a human-readable
format, written in commonly accepted technical language;
(5) is documented, so that anyone can write software that can read and
interpret the complete semantics of any data file stored in the data format;
(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
(7) allows any file written in that format to be identified as adhering or
not adhering to the format;
(8) if it includes any use of encryption, provides that the encryption
algorithm is usable on 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 2.20 software to
unencrypt the data.
(g) "Restricted format" means any data format that is accessed, stored, or
transferred 2.22 and is not open standards compliant.
Language to be added to Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, section 16E.04,
(g) The office shall assist state agencies to avoid the purchase or creation
of data processing devices or systems that do not comply with open standards
for the accessing, storing, or transferring of data. The office shall:
(1) ensure any new data standards which the state of Minnesota defines and
to which it owns all rights are open standards compliant;
(2) use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a
project do not make it technically impossible to do this. For a particular
project involving the access, storage, or transfer of data, a restricted
data format may be chosen when satisfaction of essential project
requirements precludes the use of an open data format. Neither the current
storage format of previously collected data, nor current utilization of
specific software products, is a sufficient reason, in absence of other
specific overriding functional requirements, to use a restricted format;
(3) reexamine existing data stored in a restricted format, to which the
state of Minnesota does not own the rights, every four years to determine if
the format has become open and, if not, whether an appropriate open standard
(4) make readily accessible, from a central location on the Internet,
documentation on open data formats used by the state of Minnesota. When data
in open format is made available through the state's Web site, a link shall
be provided to the corresponding data format documentation.