Question: What are the pros and cons of different data formats (performance, file size, etc.) when considering open data distribution?

Our organisation wants to publish data as open data. However, there is no clear idea on which data formats to use. Ofcourse, the more 'open' a data format is, the easier it is to use.

Which data formats are the most 'open' and therefore most usable for the distribution of Open Data when taking the following types in consideration?:

* raster data (I'm thinking: GeoTIFF, Erdas Imagine IMG?)
* vector data (I'm thinking: GML, CSV, ESRI Shapefile, DXF?)
* tabular data (I'm thinking: CSV?)
* 3D data (I'm thinking: CityGML?)
* 3D point coulds / LIDAR (I'm thinking: LAS?)
* am I forgetting something here?

Also, if there is documentation about open data formats I'm very interested if you would like to share.

Answer: 
For tabular csv. Excel is at best overly complicated and at worst totally inaccessible. Access is not accessible and PDF is a slap in the face. 

For geospatial use geojson, it's text it's well supported and doesn't have the technical restrictions that the only other viable format (shapefile) has. Also unless you have a very good reason it should be in WGS84, bearing in mind that most users will be in another state and will not want state plane.
I would say:

* Shapefiles or GML for vector data
* .obj-Files for 3D models
* .xyz (simple CSV) for point clouds
* CSV for tabular data
* GeoTIFF for raster data

These formats are easily readable by Open Source Software and are easily transformable to any other format needed for specific applications.

Also +1 for making data open!