[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Fri May 30 18:53:48 UTC 2014

A. I will put this on the agenda for our upcoming conference call.

B. Agreed.  I'll make those edits and push.

C. Machine readable and bulk were in a comment and we were going to try to
eliminate all comments from this version.  I think your suggested revision
to incorporate those terms into the description works.  I would prefer not
to add a comment as we're trying to eliminate them.  I think the remaining
comment can be incorporated into the text as well.  I'll attempt that and
we can see how it looks.

Herb

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
wrote:

> I think this now looking *really good* :-)
>
> Some final thoughts (I think we are very close to having our 2.0 here!)
>
> A. I'm wondering if we swap section 2 and section 1 so that Open Works
> come first and then refers to Open License stuff which is section 2
>
> B. Section 2.1.1
>
> I think we need to make clearer that you actually need to apply an open
> license. Suggested tweak:
>
> The *work* *must* be available under an open *license *(as defined in
> section 1). Any additional terms accompanying the work (such as a terms
> of use) *must not* contradict the terms of the license.
>
> C. Machine readable and bulk
>
> We seem to have lost stuff around machine-readable and bulk. I wonder if
> we can tweak 2.1.3 (rename complements 2.1.1 which is about legal openness)
>
> 2.1.3 Technically Open
>
> The *work* *must* be provided in a convenient and modifiable form such
> that there are no unnecessary technological obstacles to the performance of
> the licensed rights. Specifically, data should be machine-readable,
> available in bulk and provided in formats that are open or, at the very
> least, can be processed with at least one free/open source software tool.
>
> Comment: an open data format is one whose specification is publicly and
> freely available and which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise
> upon its use.
>
> Aside: could also provide a definition of machine readable if needed e.g.
> this is what we have on http://okfn.org/opendata/ i.e.
>
> <quote>
> Data can be provided in many ways and this can have significant impact on
> the ability to easily use it. The Definition thus requires that data be
> machine-readable and available in “bulk”.
>
> Data is machine-readable if it can be easily processed by a computer. This
> does not just mean digital, but that it is in a digital structure that is
> appropriate for the relevant processing. For example, consider a PDF
> document containing tables of data. These are digital, but computers will
> struggle to extract the information from the PDF (even though it is very
> human readable!). The equivalent tables in a format such as a spreadsheet
> would be machine readable. Read more about [machine-readability in the open
> data glossary].
>
> Data is available in bulk if you download or access the whole dataset
> easily. Conversely it is non-bulk if you are you limited to just getting
> parts of the dataset, for example, are you restricted to a few elements of
> the data at a time – imagine for example trying to a database of all the
> towns in the world one element at a time.
> </quote>
>
>
> On 7 May 2014 23:05, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> I have further refined the v2.0 dev file and think it's getting close to
>> final form.
>>
>> As discussed I've removed all comments and examples and attempted to make
>> things clear without losing anything.  I think you should be able to look
>> at v1.1 and find every clause covered in v2.0dev, though in some cases in
>> the new "must" form rather than the v1.1 "must not" form.
>>
>> You'll find it here:
>>
>> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown
>>
>> I request that members of the AC review this draft and confirm that it is
>> at least as rigorous as v1.1 and if not, make suggestions.  We don't want
>> to unintentionally lose anything in the revision.
>>
>> Once we're satisfied that we haven't lost anything I would suggest we
>> test it against existing conformant licenses and make sure we're consistent
>> with v1.1 in that previously approved licenses would still be approved
>> under the new version (or if not, be able to explain why not).
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> od-discuss mailing list
>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> * Rufus Pollock Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock |
> @rufuspollock <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock> Open Knowledge
> <http://okfn.org/> - see how data can change the world **http://okfn.org/
> <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog
> <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
> company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140530/f078d924/attachment-0003.html>