Here are some additional comments. I’ll leave the discussion of what is/should be open to others.

• Consider changing title to: Proposal: San Francisco/California Guidelines for Publishing Open Data or something similar.

• Change “commonly used Web search applications and commonly used software” to “Web search applications and software that have achieved dominance in the marketplace and are publicly recognized as widely used.
• I interpret the term “Open Data Standard” in the context of this proposal to mean any data or documents that are, can, may, or should be available to the public without restriction.

The term “Open Data Standard” does not have a single definition. Commonly agreed definitions include:

• Published without restriction; the standard is available at no charge or a charge that is reasonable in cost and can be reasonably administered by parties in the implicated industry.
• Made freely available for adoption by the industry
• Controlled by a non-profit open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.

While implementation of this definition is outside of the scope of this effort, it should not be completely ignored. There will be an increased cost to filter data and documents that are published and distributed electronically versus those that are just posted online. Personally I don’t think the definition of “open data” needs to be restricted to data and documents that are available on the web.

My suggestions:
• Change “open data online” to “open data exchanged electronically”
• Change “published online” to “distributed electronically”
• Change “new documents are published online” to “ new documents are distributed electronically”
• Change “education employees” to “educating employees”

Open data standard has two very different semantic meanings. I will cover this in a later post.