[od-discuss] Machine readability in v2.1

Sun Aug 2 20:08:46 UTC 2015

Hello everyone, and thanks to Rufus, Aaron, Peter, Stephen and both
Andrews for your contributions. I feel like we're progressing here !
:)

Although I liked Rufus' proposal completed with Andrew's suggestion, I
think I prefer Aaron's latest version.

It really reduces the 1.3 to what it really concerns and the phrasing
of 1.4 seems stronger to me :
- as expressed by many, "machine readable" and "fully processed" were
still blurry and could be badly interpreted. With
"machine-processable" and "working with and/or modifying the
individual
data or content elements" i feel like this adresses most cases
- using MUST instead of SHOULD sounds necessary to me and was my issue
with Rufus' version. This version places a MUST whereas it restricts
it to specific works that are data, which feels stronger
- always in favor of referring to FLOS and open formats

I'm just not completely sure about the "although best " and "readily
available upon request" parts: if it exists in such form, i guess it
must be provided as such, so why not reverse it as something like
this:

1.4 Machine Processable Form Available
« When the **work** is fitted for working with and/or modifying its
individual data or content elements, it *must* at least be provided in
a "machine-processable" open format that permits such process. »

Best,
Benjamin

PS: Just missing the be in "work must BE provided" of Aaron's 1.3

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/29/2015 08:14 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>> Good suggested amendment Andrew. To summarize:
>>
>> 1.4 Machine Readability____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> The work should be provided in "machine-readable" form, that is one in
>> which the content can easily be accessed and processed by a computer,
>> and which is in form in which modifications to individual data/content
>> elements can easily be performed.
>>
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>>
>
> My suggested variations:
>
> 1.3 Open Format
>
> "The **work** *must* provided in an open format. An open format is one
> which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and
> can be fully read by at least one free/libre/open-source software tool."
>
> 1.4 Machine Processable Form Available
>
> "Although best when included by default, the **work** *must* at least be
> readily available upon request in a "machine-processable" open format
> that is appropriate for working with and/or modifying the individual
> data or content elements."
>
> A lot of details are incorporated here in my specific wording which aims
> to capture many different concerns (I went through several edits to get
> to this point).
>
> The gist here is:
>
> * split 1.3 into two sections: 1.3 now emphaiszes a minimal open format
> for distribution (e.g. non-DRM'ed PDF is okay for normal distribution,
> proprietary formats are not) while 1.4 specifies the *availability* of
> machine-processable data. Like with software, this says that binaries,
> i.e. human-readable renderings are still "open" if they include
> information about how to access the machine-processable data.
>
> * Instead of just "computer" I think both issues need to emphasize FLO
> software, and rather than too much redundancy, mentioning "open format"
> in 1.4 seems functional.
>
> * I added wording that better generalized the issues: "working with and
> modifying" (analyzing data isn't about modifying it).
>
> * This changes "should" into "must" for at least the *availability* of
> the preferred source form for working-with/modifying. The only "should"
> or "preferable" that is left is the inclusion of the source files by
> default (as opposed to by request). Thus, this is a stronger requirement
> for "machine readable data" but does not make the plain distribution of
> rendered, human-readable forms automatically "non-open".
>
> My wording may not be final, but the gist of these changes conceptually
> make sense and should go forward. We could add something vague like "the
> data or content elements vary based on the type of work". We could also
> specify more about what "readily available upon request" entails if
> necessary.
>
> Best,
> Aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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