[euopendata] Open Knowledge Definition,

[Antti Poikola]

Hi Paola,

All definitions are somewhat limited by nature, in the limitations 
remain also their strength. Definitions limit some important aspects of 
often complex phenomena into compact and understandable form.

On 14.1.2011 14:07, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> This does not mean the definition is not valid, just a bit limited in 
> scope and possible 'closed', and not applicable as the sole and 
> exclusive 'universal principle'  for people working actively in open 
> data today.

It's good that you raised this question, I would like to here more 
specifically which limitations you consider most important in OK 
Definitions and what other usable definitions you know which extends the 
coverage.

> Besides, the fact that the open knowledge definition is not 'open' is 
> a bit of paradox itself, how can people contribute to expand it and 
> make it more realistic ? Is there a revision due?

This is very good point, I believe that some sort of revision process 
could serve the purpose.

> The Open Knowledge Definition, like the Open Data Commons, is 
> perfectly good effort, but should be taken with a pinch of salt, like 
> all other things, one should remain critical
> when adopting it, and strive for continual improvement, not to become 
> an obstacle to progress.

By adopting one definition at least I don't exclude other definitions.

-Antti "Jogi" Poikola

-- 
--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email three sentences or less?
A: http://three.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: antti_poikola.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 151 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/attachments/20110115/9888fb00/attachment-0003.vcf>