OK, we disagree. Except that #4 IS sort of redundant, though I want to make the point that data is almost impossible for a layperson, and still really hard for a practiced analyst.
I actually meant it when I said I didn't understand what you were getting at. I initially read it as you saying that there shouldn't be a data.gov at all (because raw data's useless, curated data's expensive and difficult, and simplified data summaries are likely to be misinterpreted by lay people), but that can't be right, so I'm really curious what you were actually trying to say. What would an ideal data.gov look like, to you?
I moved my reply to my top comment and screwed up the reply tree here. So this is for the comment that follows this one:
data.gov is fundamentally flawed, and won't be anything but annoying until it is reworked into something along the lines of what I suggest. Or so I think...