[od-discuss] O[K]D?

[Rufus Pollock]

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