[od-discuss] OD Summay

Mon Apr 20 21:01:34 UTC 2015

Sounds great to me. Mostly, I want that as the *one* summary, and we
kill any additional summaries.

On 04/20/2015 01:58 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> I have examined all four versions (including Aarons suggestion).  I
> think the one on the home page is best, with the word "requirements"
> replaced by "measures":
> 
> "Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
> purpose (subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
> openness)."
> 
> This summary is just describing the adjective "open".  As a summary to
> me it seems clean, and easy to use on it's own.  And, I think that's
> mostly how it's used in conversation.
> 
> It can be applied to nouns such as knowledge, data and works in general...
> 
> Having the last part in parentheses implies that the rest of it could
> stand on it's own - which it can grammatically, but I don't think it can
> as a general assertion, so I would consider removing the brackets as well.
> 
> Is there any reason we *need* to refer to knowledge, data or content in
> the summary?  Can we leave it to the definition to apply the word "open"
> and just stick to defining "open" in the summary?
> 
> H
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net
> <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net>> wrote:
> 
>     I added a comment on the GitHub link.
> 
>     https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/9e853212a5690f1724e0b2a59808e91b7112c691#commitcomment-9979665
> 
>     I hadn't noticed that issue before with the double definition that
>     tries for concision but actually only makes the wording longer, more
>     confusing, and adds redundancy.
> 
>     Note that even the variations shown are inconsistent in the term
>     "measures" vs "requirements" — I definitely prefer "measures" as it
>     is more general and, I think, more appropriate for this summary.
> 
>     For reference, the *additional* new proposal I added on GitHub is:
> 
>     *"Open" means unrestricted.* Specifically, anyone can freely access,
>     use, modify, and share any open data, open content, and other forms
>     of open knowledge (subject, at most, to measures that preserve
>     provenance and openness).
> 
>     I'm not sure it's best, but it offers elements for consideration. I
>     dislike the specification of "open data" and "open content" without
>     reference to open knowledge. I prefer either "open knowledge" be
>     included (and I could skip having "open content" ever mentioned but
>     won't insist) or not use an noun examples.
> 
>     I **strongly** agree that there should be one functional summary
>     statement used in all cases.
> 
>     Best,
>     Aaron
>     On 03/01/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>     > On 02/13/2015 07:57 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>     > > In checking the text for the Ireland paper on licenses I
>     realized we now
>     > > have three similar but distinct summary statements.
>     > >
>     > > Two on the landing page:
>     > >
>     > > “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
>     > > purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve
>     provenance and
>     > > openness).”
>     > >
>     > > “Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by
>     > > anyone for any purpose”
>     > >
>     > > and one on the definition page:
>     > >
>     > > "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and
>     share
>     > > it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
>     openness."
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > Is there some good reason for this that I'm missing?
>     > >
>     > > My thinking is that we should have one unless there is some
>     reason to
>     > > have more than one.
>     >
>     > Rufus added the third one at
>     >
>     https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/9e853212a5690f1724e0b2a59808e91b7112c691#diff-e701188abab5b493e5915f1270430909
>     >
>     > I prefer only one on the home page and in the current OD version. We
>     > should be so happy with the summary in 2.1 that we don't feel a
>     need to
>     > tweak for the home page.
>     >
>     > Mike
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > od-discuss mailing list
>     > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>     > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>     > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>     >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     od-discuss mailing list
>     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>     https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150420/ec06a65d/attachment-0003.sig>