No subject
Thu Oct 25 19:26:07 UTC 2012
Definition". It's clean and simple.
Putting the word "Knowledge" in the middle of the definition makes me think
"I wonder what they mean by knowledge?".
For some reason, I think the word "Knowledge" in the parent organization
OKF is fine... makes total sense, but I do prefer just OD for the
definition.
I also like the "how does this relate to area X" idea that Rufus suggests.
+1
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:
> On 12 February 2013 03:23, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> > AFAICT, throughout its history, the OKD has been called the OKD, eg
> > http://blog.okfn.org/2005/10/19/open-knowledge-definition-released/
>
> That is definitely what is was originally called. With the new domain
> "open definition" there started to be some toing and fro-ing on this
> (in my mind and in reference on the web).
>
> > Except on the document itself http://opendefinition.org/okd/ (current
> > version anyway) and a few other places on the opendefinition.org site,
> > such as the "in your language" sidebar, where it is called "Open
> > Definition".
> >
> > I changed the places I found on the site to OKD sometime in the past
> > couple months, but it looks like they're back. Also looks like the
> > overall OKF theme may have been upgraded (looks nice), maybe there's a
> > correlation (I mean, causation, but such is common language).
>
> I upgraded the theme :-)
>
> > Anyway, we should discuss this. I like consistent use of OKD and Open
> > Knowledge Definition spelled out; it's consistent, accurate, and ties
>
> I think we certainly need to have consistent usage of od vs okd
>
> > in nicely with OKF; great branding in my opinion. And OD/Open
> > Definition is somewhere between generic and imperialist. I have
>
> I'm somewhat torn. I think the issue with pure OKD is that the
> knowledge has a somewhat odd ring and the main applications are around
> data and content.
>
> OD fits with this genericity (that the "knowledge" was ultimately
> trying to capture ...) and fits with the URL and is just shorter.
>
> > daydreamed about a meta open definition, which would try to capture
> > the spirit of Open even when people try to apply the term to things
> > that aren't fixed (knowledge, software) but also processes and
> > relations (organizations, society...). This is probably not the right
> > venue or time, but it a do-ocracy to an extent if anyone wishes to
> > try. :)
>
> I agree on that. I think a focus on (non-software) information / data
> / content is right. We don't want to get into processes. Plus open as
> in process and open as in material are fundamentally different [1]
>
> [1]: cf Section 3.2, Dictator and the Anarchist in
>
> http://rufuspollock.org/2007/09/18/talk-at-law-20-openness-web-20-and-the-ethic-of-sharing/
>
> > OpenDefinition.org and the OD AC make more sense as depending on what
> > one counts, there are anywhere from 1 to 5 open definitions under the
> > project, there could be others in the future, and it occurs to me that
> > a direction for the site would be to prominently provide pointers to
> > Open in domains outside our core expertise (Open Source being most
> > obvious).
>
> I think this takes us back to the discussion in December re keeping
> OSSD prominent or deprecating it somewhat. Having thought about this
> I'm +1 on putting OSSD somewhat on the back burner and having the
> site, and our efforts, focus on the O(K)D for the current term.
>
> > The 5 are:
> >
> > Unquestionably, http://opendefinition.org/okd/
> >
> > Hidden (also seems to be recent; I didn't) and possibly subject to
> > retirement or handing off, http://opendefinition.org/software-service/
>
> I think we needn't full-on retire but somewhat archive.
>
> > Domain-specific, that simply refer to the OKD (last a bit more
> complicated):
> > http://opendefinition.org/bibliographic/
> > http://opendefinition.org/government/
> > http://opendefinition.org/science/
>
> This was from a period of trying to provide simple introductions per
> subject matter. IMO we could archive / deprecate or consolidate these
> into some form of introduction material (e.g. how does this relate to
> area X)
>
> > ...
> >
> > I'd like to arrive at a specific decision on consistent OKD naming (or
> > re-naming). Maybe that will be easy.
>
> My thoughts above. I note that we could also include (related but can
> also be dealt with separately - and this may be better in a separate
> thread(s)):
>
> * Topic introductions (keep / remove / relocate)
> * OSSD - archive / retire / keep
>
> > Queued up for discussion (but feel free to now), probably also on an
> > upcoming telecon, to be scheduled:
> > * Open Software Service Definition disposition
> > * Our strategy for domain-specific further definitions/explanations
> > * Our strategy for highlighting/recommending complementary Open
> > definitions (software, standards?)
>
> +1
>
> Rufus
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
--
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
--f46d04016b05c8019804d588995b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">From my perspective, as a relative newcomer, I like the la=
bel "Open Definition". =A0It's clean and simple.<div><br></di=
v><div>Putting the word "Knowledge" in the middle of the definiti=
on makes me think "I wonder what they mean by knowledge?".</div>
<div><br></div><div style>For some reason, I think the word "Knowledge=
" in the parent organization OKF is fine... makes total sense, but I d=
o prefer just OD for the definition.</div><div><br></div><div style>I also =
like the "how does this relate to area X" idea that Rufus suggest=
s. +1</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue,=
Feb 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Rufus Pollock <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org" target=3D"_blank">rufus.pollock at okfn.org</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On 12 February 2013 03:23,=
Mike Linksvayer <<a href=3D"mailto:ml at gondwanaland.com">ml at gondwanaland=
.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> AFAICT, throughout its history, the OKD has been called the OKD, eg<br=
>
> <a href=3D"http://blog.okfn.org/2005/10/19/open-knowledge-definition-r=
eleased/" target=3D"_blank">http://blog.okfn.org/2005/10/19/open-knowledge-=
definition-released/</a><br>
<br>
</div>That is definitely what is was originally called. With the new domain=
<br>
"open definition" there started to be some toing and fro-ing on t=
his<br>
(in my mind and in reference on the web).<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> Except on the document itself <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/okd=
/" target=3D"_blank">http://opendefinition.org/okd/</a> (current<br>
> version anyway) and a few other places on the <a href=3D"http://opende=
finition.org" target=3D"_blank">opendefinition.org</a> site,<br>
> such as the "in your language" sidebar, where it is called &=
quot;Open<br>
> Definition".<br>
><br>
> I changed the places I found on the site to OKD sometime in the past<b=
r>
> couple months, but it looks like they're back. Also looks like the=
<br>
> overall OKF theme may have been upgraded (looks nice), maybe there'=
;s a<br>
> correlation (I mean, causation, but such is common language).<br>
<br>
</div>I upgraded the theme :-)<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> Anyway, we should discuss this. I like consistent use of OKD and Open<=
br>
> Knowledge Definition spelled out; it's consistent, accurate, and t=
ies<br>
<br>
</div>I think we certainly need to have consistent usage of od vs okd<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> in nicely with OKF; great branding in my opinion. And OD/Open<br>
> Definition is somewhere between generic and imperialist. I have<br>
<br>
</div>I'm somewhat torn. I think the issue with pure OKD is that the<br=
>
knowledge has a somewhat odd ring and the main applications are around<br>
data and content.<br>
<br>
OD fits with this genericity (that the "knowledge" was ultimately=
<br>
trying to capture ...) and fits with the URL and is just shorter.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> daydreamed about a meta open definition, which would try to capture<br=
>
> the spirit of Open even when people try to apply the term to things<br=
>
> that aren't fixed (knowledge, software) but also processes and<br>
> relations (organizations, society...). This is probably not the right<=
br>
> venue or time, but it a do-ocracy to an extent if anyone wishes to<br>
> try. :)<br>
<br>
</div>I agree on that. I think a focus on (non-software) information / data=
<br>
/ content is right. We don't want to get into processes. Plus open as<b=
r>
in process and open as in material are fundamentally different [1]<br>
<br>
[1]: cf Section 3.2, Dictator and the Anarchist in<br>
<a href=3D"http://rufuspollock.org/2007/09/18/talk-at-law-20-openness-web-2=
0-and-the-ethic-of-sharing/" target=3D"_blank">http://rufuspollock.org/2007=
/09/18/talk-at-law-20-openness-web-20-and-the-ethic-of-sharing/</a><br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> OpenDefinition.org and the OD AC make more sense as depending on what<=
br>
> one counts, there are anywhere from 1 to 5 open definitions under the<=
br>
> project, there could be others in the future, and it occurs to me that=
<br>
> a direction for the site would be to prominently provide pointers to<b=
r>
> Open in domains outside our core expertise (Open Source being most<br>
> obvious).<br>
<br>
</div>I think this takes us back to the discussion in December re keeping<b=
r>
OSSD prominent or deprecating it somewhat. Having thought about this<br>
I'm +1 on putting OSSD somewhat on the back burner and having the<br>
site, and our efforts, focus on the O(K)D for the current term.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> The 5 are:<br>
><br>
> Unquestionably, <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/okd/" target=3D"_=
blank">http://opendefinition.org/okd/</a><br>
><br>
> Hidden (also seems to be recent; I didn't) and possibly subject to=
<br>
> retirement or handing off, <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/softwa=
re-service/" target=3D"_blank">http://opendefinition.org/software-service/<=
/a><br>
<br>
</div>I think we needn't full-on retire but somewhat archive.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> Domain-specific, that simply refer to the OKD (last a bit more complic=
ated):<br>
> <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/bibliographic/" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://opendefinition.org/bibliographic/</a><br>
> <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/government/" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://opendefinition.org/government/</a><br>
> <a href=3D"http://opendefinition.org/science/" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//opendefinition.org/science/</a><br>
<br>
</div>This was from a period of trying to provide simple introductions per<=
br>
subject matter. IMO we could archive / deprecate or consolidate these<br>
into some form of introduction material (e.g. how does this relate to<br>
area X)<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> ...<br>
><br>
> I'd like to arrive at a specific decision on consistent OKD naming=
(or<br>
> re-naming). Maybe that will be easy.<br>
<br>
</div>My thoughts above. I note that we could also include (related but can=
<br>
also be dealt with separately - and this may be better in a separate<br>
thread(s)):<br>
<br>
* Topic introductions (keep / remove / relocate)<br>
* OSSD - archive / retire / keep<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> Queued up for discussion (but feel free to now), probably also on an<b=
r>
> upcoming telecon, to be scheduled:<br>
> * Open Software Service Definition disposition<br>
> * Our strategy for domain-specific further definitions/explanations<br=
>
> * Our strategy for highlighting/recommending complementary Open<br>
> definitions (software, standards?)<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Rufus<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
od-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org">od-discuss at lists.okfn.org</a><=
br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href=3D"http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss" t=
arget=3D"_blank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<span></span><span></span>Herb Lainchbury<br>Dynamic Solutions Inc.<br><a h=
ref=3D"http://www.dynamic-solutions.com" target=3D"_blank">www.dynamic-solu=
tions.com</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://twitter.com/herblainchbury" target=3D"_blank">http://twit=
ter.com/herblainchbury</a>
</div>
--f46d04016b05c8019804d588995b--
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list