Hi again @dannylammerhirt
Good to hear that one of the three formats meet the criteria. Thank you for the feedback.
I thought the evaluation of this criteria (“open and machine readable format”) would be done more on a case-by-case basis, where the answer wasn’t obvious, and wasn’t aware that adding or not adding a format to the list of data formats is part of the process. I think this can be more clear in the explanaintion of the methodology: https://index.okfn.org/methodology/
For example, it could be mentioned that for a submission to be approved, a format has to be added to the list, if it is not already there.
I see the point of prefering to avoid adding a country-native format. On the other hand, if the format is widely used in the publishing country, and it’s possible to open with a open-source tool, it seems unfair to give zero points. Tricky situation, and a bit more so when it comes to geodata. My impression is that there’s many geodata-formats, and few that are open formats (i.e. free, open standard, standard governed by independend body) and widely used.
Is there some documentation for the list of approved file formats?
It would be great to see a short description of the formats and what they are used for. I have no idea what “PX” is for, and I only know what domain “GRIB2” is used for because I submitted to GODI before and had to look it up.
After the survey is finalised, it would be great to get statistics on file formats. For example the frequency of different formats for a category. F.ex. that “SHP” is used by X number of places, while GeoJSON is used by Y places.
I guess these data will readily available with the controlled list of formats and the results in a machine readable format