Why free data standard

Article justifying the free data standard (10+ minutes read).

The more freedom for sharing, the more love carries what’s shared

Defining data needs to define its parent Language and also a companion definion of Life (forms) along, because Information or Data can’t be an Object independent of the Subject (as neither mass of observer, etc). In the other pole, we find two different arguments: a) About this subject in general: Flaw: Solipsist observation is just an exageration of the unicities design, and b) Subject specific: AGI theories ((mineralcentric) semigod, messiah, etc). I’ll take some points from the AGI hypothesis and will bring them to my other points here.

Binary code reflects well a natural bipolar source, they both form a very long link indeed. Our eyes have been so friendly to pixelation, but screeny communication is very recent. Forms based in binary sources are very present nowadays as channels for everybody interact with each other.

Regardless of all that, Data also relies on uncertainity. Source can be open but no free. The free energy definition is even more problematic than the free will one. Entropy free? Premonitory parapsichology?

Nevertheless… science is, in a very resumed way, about approaching predictivities (a way to co-live with uncertainity) and software analisers could be seen themselves as a vanguard of it, because they notice first than us the higher potentialities of (future) bindings to suggest to us people, where some of them will match the suggester prediction by our later materialising-following of them.

I knew it (was going to happen)!, said a machine learning code to another…

All suggestions aim to be materialized, but if they are too invasive they don’t get the attention and care they pursue.

Meanwhile you read this, we are getting to be more picky with our browsing tastes needs. We want to complicate programmers life more, pushing them to having to care more about design&usability. We are asking for too many dresses for the limited backbone options the technology does its analitics of our data with. We want their oracled premonition, why we bother them with that much need for glitter?

With Freedom a similar issue than with Data happens, but inversely. Generally speaking, Data is more objectified and lesser subjectivized. Freedom, averagely, refers more to the subjectivity pole than the objective one.

Defining freedom looks harder than Data because of that, but sure that we could acknowledge some lovely moments we have (and better ones we could have) in our relation with data, that tell us bits about what is such subjectivity that the word freedom pushes us to attend more.

This free data standard proposition position on this issue is to propose the following (very extendable) paralel taxonomization for informational & living forms:

DARK Amorph Unknowable Stuff
PARTICLE Form Very unknown Noise
MATTER Non-sintient Quite unknown Vibration
BIOLOGY Sintient Much unknown Signal
PLANT Sensual Barely known Code
ANIMAL Sexual Natural language Sign
HUMAN Soul Processed language Symbol

Having them this along helps in understand each and how much they need the other. For extending the subjectivity debate up simply to another degree of complexity, we should refer to the (way for the) definition of Sense (or Free within Floves).

Relating Data with Senses evidences interesting things. For example, since our viewing is very polarly tied with our touch (also with smell as its micro and with the more ancestral -centroider- hearing), Data is not only externally seen, it also touches us. The data touch is our evidence for being reflecting within our body that externalized objectification. Even just giving attention to any data implies a contact with Leibniz (&…) and some more with closer manufacturers to you of that specific bit you interact with.

Some human somewhen did an input form to feel to touch others who would add bits to it. Same as if it is any machine learning analitical operation, it will also be not just touching itself with the changes it does, it will be trying to touch us better than how the original author did. Eye candy pixels seems an optimal form for that purpose… .

The environtment where any data is based in is touching us. If you use freer software, your sooner or later writing will feel it. If you are wispering a big love secret, you want an specific comfortable atmosphera for it. Also, if you have your home with messed folders, you are still enjoying the living room, just don’t complain you don’t because you like your supposed messed things to touch you that way, helped through a clearer contact of them with your eyes.

See more: Flove army sci-fi literature project




Open for the quantity, Free for the quality

Privative data Personal data Open data Free data

Personal data is a standard name, where mydata.org is a cool communtarian umbrella for projects aligned with that standard. There is not a decent enough free data proposal yet (nor this one is, but a step forward for it).

Another keyword as lovely data or else will avoid the «open source software initiative» creation aside of the «free software» one, but we should not avoid the freedom debate either, and open data can stand for a more decentralized categorization of alternative initiatives to centralized networks, where free data one could be betting for a more centralized (detailed) standard about decentralized (to be degreed so dictatorship moved to incentivizer of decentralized vanguards).

By relating data to freedom we bring data to see its function in the social scope more directly. Many areas of society are to be improved through the better involvement of data management practices in them.



Free data is a proposed new standard for improving people’s choices about data management, appliable from a small group of people offline up to a big data pool.

Any new standard proposition aims to improve an already working on situation by proposing mechanics that are either

1. Overseen good points in informal practices already happening, they need to be further structurized (From center to edges).

2. Good points not yet developed by any other project (From edges to center) need to foresee them being adopted in some near (or even far) future, while propose prototyping development for the short term.

Flove.org project is proposed as a prototype of the following free data standard

Free data standard is needed because of the natural-class struggle in the data management side of things we experience nowadays.

Whatever resources management privileges concentration reaches a critical point where there are some parties that feel too dependant of that centralization and have it easier to start develop other alternatives for being able to better manage their own resources in a more accessible way for themselves.

At this present 202X time, in the data management side of things, there is a big gap between «big data» management companies and other smaller data management companies or projects. Big data companies have every time more data, feel less accountable for society and (or because) there is also short collaboration in the smaller data management initiatives. New common standards could ease these needed alliances. Free data standard sucesses should also incentivate big datas to copy/paste from them.

Free data standard should be patching the bugs we see the big data pools have towards their users (and educate in the viceversa) and also patch in the bugs of previous (de)centralization struggles.

Every code developer knows well that you have to provide a transitional link and or portability between the old paradigm or platform (still very used) and the proposed new one (not much used yet).

Having an overwhelming majority of people using it gives more Social points to whichever data metrics, but these are not all the parametets from the game.

This data standard, since wants to detail much freefom within, should make it quite hard for any project, platform, cluster to qualify high in all parameters. These aren’t bad news, it is rather s challenge for flove.org prototype (and other adherents) to be foretouching and embracing tighter the energy that made them show up with such ambition in the first place.



The free data standard is completely aligned with mydata petition. Free data adds on the top of it extensions and improvements to it in the form of a more clear definition of categories and depth of the standard for facilitating the implementing of partial metrics or modular applications of it and push for more freedom appliances overall.

Mydata is a communitty that proposes to share some principles for data management resumed in a petition. Some key points at the manifest propose very ambituous objectives (for gathering support from a broad audience) with very open-to-interpretation words (i.e. portability, control, my, etc). The petition also manifests its willing to support the ongoing projects which comply with the standards and proposes the development of new prototypes for non-existing practices of the proposed standards. But mydata community doesn’t corporately invest in any specific development or prototype beyond one annual gathering and few actions about that from the organizers. More concrete details about the methodology for support or develop prototypes is not further specified, hence such ambitious proposals are left without further mechanics to moderate membership nor for practically (really) implementing the declared intentions from the standard.

The petition format is already an strategic move to serve as a communitarian umbrella for cross-colaboration between projects with affinity to the values expressed there. Since mydata appeared as a need to develop collaborative ways to manage data in a historical moment where access to the resource was not enough decentralized, mydata does already enough by being only a communitarian umbrella (a place for low moderated projects cross-collaboration), and don’t need to propose more concrete standards (either philosophically or technically-really), nor get to develop altogether some key prototypes. By being just an umbrella it does better its communitary function with its low moderated entry and enforcements.

Mydata could do a step forward and develop metrics appliable to projects, but mydata could also perfectly don’t develop them since there could be some very participant projects in the umbrella which would score a low compliance of such standards, and by being more clearly pointed as not much communitarian, that could discourage its participation (i.e. such projects marketing would recommend to ‘not link that much to a cluster where they show other competing projects as better than ours’).

We can love mydata as an umbrella but we should mechanize, either in and outside it, further the wished features explained in mydata petition. And for doing that, we also have to unavoidably take further steps in a spin-off of mydata communitty that more straight and more really makes the more ambituous stands such as public metrics, prototyping needed forks and further incentivized communitarian build ups.


qiyfoundation contract (maybe old)

Qiyfoundation is aligned with mydata petition and it is perhaps the more ambituos (in the sense of full compliance with the mydata standards) project within the mydata community projects. It proposes an ambituos contractual prototype that already has (at least partly) specified the freedom of analysis. It also gets quite concrete in the proposal of values for freedom of service and storage (free network) but through a blockchain not very specified. Qiyfoundation network standards and application proposal are not better than the secushare platform parameters for defining the freedom of a network, or any of the applications showcased at the comparision tables there. Qiyfoundation neither involves deeply or extend usability or semantic standards for data.

Nevertheless qiy or else analitical related vanguards, it is at stock exchanges (and or cyptoexchanges) where the more advanced cases of social contracting between analitical softwares are to be found either as already centralizers andor as innovative (decentralizer) vanguard referrals.



Secushare is by far aligned with mydata petition and there are not anywhere else better defined standards for privacy in a social network software. This makes secushare a preferent network software prototype to try to implement free data standard through. But such very innovative and deep standards on privacy are not minding other freedoms that are very relative or complementary to them such as the free content or free analisis ones. Secushare neither is going to offer a social communitarian standard intiative-like (not even as free network standard), since in the case of willing to do it, it should rather be done through the GNU project itself (its parent), which may require an upgrade which it is not likely to happen as GNU-FSF domain of action is limited to the scope of «Just Software and Documents for software» as it has been repeteadly expressed in the past, i.e. CreativeCommons (so called free culture) was started from a FSF contributor outside the GNU communitty, there are some not very formalized thematic distros, butso Social Network is a thougher one to formalize. This free data thread has been raised at some GNU specific forums (GNU consensus) in a much more raw format than this, with little interest exposed received.

Secushare does not involve standarization of usability either, nor it is much interested in implementing analytics featuring in the software (it is not interested in «free big data» because it is against «big data»).