Well, I'd have to think about it.
You'll notice that we used “data” in our subtitle. We did so because we thought that was getting to where the value was in terms of what citizens and businesses could use. We also use the term “unlocking of government”, because our view has been that most of this type of information has been squirreled away and locked up for quite some time at all kinds of levels within government. Even within government departments and ministries, there's not as much sharing of information inside government, let alone with the public outside, as you might expect.
One of the things that we think will be a useful and a significant byproduct of an “open data” or “open government” phenomenon—and I tend to use the terms interchangeably—is that as data are viewed more as a public asset than a ministry or departmental or government type of resource, there will be more sharing of information and more understanding of policy implications of various decisions within government than there would be otherwise.
My feeling is that many of the types of data we're now seeing shared publicly by other jurisdictions were not being shared internally; access to those is not common inside government. I think you'll see much more responsiveness and ability to analyze policy options, etc., by virtue of opening up these data sets, but I don't know why you would want to differentiate. I'm sure there are good reasons, but I wouldn't want to comment on what they might be.