[od-discuss] OD 2.1 draft

Fri Jan 16 13:04:38 UTC 2015

On 15 January 2015 at 19:29, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> I have copied the OD 2.0 text and made a new 2.0 dev version here:
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
>
> The diff can be viewed here:
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/014bd67d527010ec9af4b9bd7edba128b40b0285
>
>
> I believe we have two main issues to address in this version of the
> definition.  They are:
>
> 1. modify "1.3 - Open Format" to clarify and strengthen it.
>
> The main difference is the change from "or" to "and".
> See discussion:
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/thread.html
>
> I also incorporated a simplified version of the text I suggested here:
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/001129.html
> The simplification is removing the requirement for a published
> specification.
>

Well done everyone here and I emphasize that I'm happy to go with the
general consensus here. However, I would say that there was logic behind
the original "or" (even if not phrased perfectly as it could lead to
confusion) in terms of fitting with the overall spirit of the Open
Definition to create the freedoms to use, reuse and redistribute whilst
acknowledging both actual practice and having criteria that were assessable.

If we feel that we have considered the trade-off here I'm happy and this is
the proposal I'm happy but I flag that we should think carefully.

> The suggestion for bulk data remains as a suggestion
>

I think bulk should be an actual requirement as per the earlier version (if
we want we can clarify what that means but I think it is a substantive and
important requirement). Without bulk there can be significant diminished in
 the real freedom to use and reuse.

> 2. modify "2.2.6 - Technical Restriction Prohibition" for clarity.
> See discussion:
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/thread.html#1178
>

> I have incorporated what I think is the best revision of 2.2.6 so far, as
> provided by Aaron:
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001194.html
>

Great rewording!

Rufus

>
>
>
> Are there any other issues we wish to address in 2.1?
>
> --
>
> 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 PollockFounder 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150116/0d0315a6/attachment-0003.html>