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: 
The city of Vienna's open data initiative (<http://data.wien.gv.at>) uses Geoserver to provide access to raster and vector geodata via Geoserver **WMS and WFS** services. This has many advantages: Users can download data in different formats for offline use (e.g. geojson, KML, or zipped Shapefiles) or use the services live by embedding them in online maps or GIS projects.
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!