[od-discuss] NEWBIE QUESTION: Why 'Open Definition' and not 'Open Knowledge Definition'?

Antti Poikola antti.poikola at gmail.com
Tue Mar 26 18:06:16 UTC 2013

Hi and thanks for the quick answer,

On 26.3.2013 19:36, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> It's been called both. Recent discussion of the issue starting
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-February/000317.html
> seems to have preferred leaving Knowledge out. It is something that
> needs to be settled before we finalize and make some noise about O[K]D
> 1.2 (mail on that forthcoming, really).
> Additional feedback on the issue welcome!

unfortunately I don't know how to reply to older thread so, I will give 
my thoughts here:

Open Definition is in my opinion empty... for me it raises question - Is 
the definition is open? not really defined or something?

Further more, the idea of translating "Open Definition" with that title 
into Finnish "Avoin määritelmä" would be absolutely no-go, so if we 
decide to stick with OD instead of OKD there has to be some sort of 
translation guidelines.

Open Definition works well as domain name and some sort of umbrella term 
where you could find the actual definitions like the OKD.


+358 44 337 5439
about.me/apoikola <http://about.me/apoikola>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130326/12d438cc/attachment.html>

More information about the od-discuss mailing list