[idbehold]

Seems like CSV would've been a better format than JSON for this type of data based on the screenshots.

[mirimir]

Indeed. Your typical data requester isn't going to know code for working with JSON. And converting JSON to CSV is a pain.

[oxymoron]

To be fair, GDPR stipulates only that it should be available in a common machine-readable format. It doesn’t require the most convenient format conceivable.

Also, CSV can’t easily handle nested objects. If the data model is even slightly more complex than a plain table, it doesn’t make much sense. I’d also argue that even if the source data is stored in an RDMS without exotic data types, a JSON with a nested object representation is probably going to be more friendly even to non-developers than multiple files with opaque foreign keys linking back and forth.

[mirimir]

Sure, simple JSON you can view in browsers.

But with CSV you can just use spreadsheets. Are there n00b-friendly apps based on R, Python, etc?

And can't you always convert JSON to multiple CSV files?

[PeterisP]

Only if you accept a potentially unlimited number of CSV files/sheets. Many forms of data aren't really easily normalizable to a limited number of flat tables without losing information.

[mirimir]

OK, then. How would someone who's not technically sophisticated interpret such JSON?

I suppose that some service could handle it. But then there's another level of trust and GDPR compliance.

[PeterisP]

Open it in any decent plaintext editor/viewer, it'll likely have support for 'prettyprinting' json, and it'll be readable.

If you want to 'do stuff' with the data, then JSON is a very (IMHO most, but your mileage may vary) reasonable format; unless that data really is just a single flat table, it would be hard to blame them from picking this format.