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

Wed Mar 27 07:13:10 UTC 2013

Hi Antti

On 26 Mar 2013, at 18:06, Antti Poikola <antti.poikola at gmail.com<mailto:antti.poikola at gmail.com>> wrote:

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?

The current definition is applicable to open knowledge, but it's not an appropriate definition for openness generally: that's why I prefer the term' Open Knowledge Definition'.

The Open Knowledge Definition is  applicable to things like open data, open education resources, open content, but it's not applicable to things like open politics and open education (open standards have elements of both). The form of openness here has other connotations - access to the decision making process, access to influencers and so on. A truly embracing definition of 'openness' would include these aspects of openness as well as the open knowledge definition.

Best

Andrew