 So, I said in my pitch for this talk that no glam organisation provides truly open data and this makes me a little sad. Now, I'm not going to go into why you should open your data. There's a great presentation called The Future is Open by Michael Edison, which I recommend that you take a look at if you need to be convinced. The good news is that there's very few of any organisations worldwide who are doing it right, so we're not alone. But what is right? Well, firstly, we should define data. And sometimes it's easier to define what data isn't. Data's not metadata. Data's not numbers. Data's not charts. Data's not image files and data's not essays. Data is all of the things. Data is everything that your organisation outputs. To steal a proverb, one man's essay is another man's corpus of text mining training data. And when you think about it, an image is simply a data in a point of time. Now, so if you think about data like this and we want to make it open, how do we know if we've made it open? And contrary to popular belief, open data is not a CC licence. Now, it ends its goal along with other tools are great initiatives and we hear a lot about these in the Glam sector. Here are another couple of initiatives that people use. But we actually have the rather dryly titled New Zealand Data and Information Management Principles, which came out in 2011. And when you look at it, it's a great framework for thinking about what open data actually means in practice. Now, there are seven principles. Open, protected, readily available, trusted and authoritative, well managed, reasonably priced, reusable. And we dive into these one by one. We can easily measure ourselves against these principles. So, let's do that. Open. Data should be open. You need a really, really good reason not to release it. Now, I'm not going to go into the OIA in seven minutes, but national security probably isn't the reason why you're choosing not to open something. Well, the archivist at the GCSP may beg to differ. So, what is your moral argument for not opening something? Protected. Yes, of course some items may be personal and confidential. So, how do we deal with these? At what point does the soldiers' medical records publishing a soldiers' medical record become acceptable? For our sector, I would go further and bring in issues of cultural sensitivity. The National Library has a really good policies around this, and maybe this is something that we can work on as a sector, come up with a starting point for all organisations to follow. Readily available. You think about making information ready available from day one. You don't give Google something and not everybody else. You need to make sure it's well documented and easy to find. Have a page or a catalogue outlining what data you have and what policies, and list the data sets and data.govt.nz. Wouldn't it be great if you go to netlib.data to papa.data, Auckland Museum.data, and know that you'll find their open data policies and what they have available. Earlier today, there were questions about licensing, what the licensing was on the Cenotaph database, as it's not clear on their website. Even though it contains a lot of reusable content in access via the Auckland Museum API, no one would know that by visiting the site. We should have this nailed, right? That's what we do with memory institutions. On the flip side, don't be afraid to open something that isn't perfect. People will forgive you if you're upfront about your imperfections. Reasonably priced. A pretty binary decision here. The cost of dissemination is trending to zero and there's no reason to charge for the data if it's a reasonable-sized organisation. In fact, charging can cost you money. We've yet to see an organisation that makes a profit from licensing images when people's time is being taken into account. Now, I get the issue with small museums, that small museums face with funding and selling images can help. A few hundred dollars a year can make a real difference when the request is being fulfilled by volunteers. Reusable. So this is kind of the nuts in the bolt, so let me dig a little deeper here. Original versions. So I don't care how good your lossy JPEG is. There's a source where it isn't original. Now, feel free to provide reusable derivatives as a default, but only derivatives that is not original. You may protect these behind some form of key to limit the effects of network traffic, but they should still be readily available if requested. Reusable. It needs to have a proper licence. In New Zealand, our end-of-goal licence is understood and well-documented, but let me reiterate, non-commercial licences are not truly open. Machine-readable format. So understand how code is think. If you want to do something, then we will. Make sure that your data can be downloaded and processed with a script. This can be as simple as dumping a CSV file on your web server or as complex as an API. A data dump of some key fields in a URL to the original images is a perfect starting point for most collection data sets. You don't need to get fancy. With metadata. Well-documented data is critical. I can't tell you the number of times I run into an API. I need to find that I can't get it to work. Just last week with the Cooper Hewitt API, a few tries to work out if the has images parameter needed a yes, a true, or a one as a value. There are a bunch of tools out there now which make it really easy to document your API and data sets. So use them. In aggregate or modified forms if they cannot be released in the original state. Because sometimes we can't release the originals. If you have a data set with lots of personal information and this is something that you want to or should release. But think about what you can release. This is an aggregated data that you can release. Can you strip personal information and still release it? In open non-proprietary formats. Data and information released in proprietary formats are also released in non-proprietary formats. Sometimes you do want to release something in a proprietary format to make it really easy to integrate with some industry standard software. That's okay as long as you release it in an open format as well. Also go further in to say that you should release the data in simple formats even if you're releasing it in an open hard-to-use format. DRM Digital Rights Technologies are not imposed on materials made available for reuse. No watermarks, no DRM. So in conclusion there you have it. Seven principles and seven minutes that can guide you in opening data and help you measure where you're at. So where does your organisation measure up? Thanks.