[od-discuss] OD 2.1 draft

[Aaron Wolf]

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is value in acknowledging when data is Open even when delivered in a non-Open format which is at least openable… but on the other hand, it's probably best to go all the way and require Open formats because we can simply say things like "the data from this city's government is almost fully Open but for the format, however, we have taken the data and re-released it in an Open format, so now it is fully Open!

So, as long as we acknowledge that it is possible for non-Open data to be Openable (because the license is permissive enough to allow that), then I'm satisfied. Perhaps we should do something aside from the Open Definition to at least acknowledge this, even though it risks accepting a level of laziness from publishers… I think this sort of grey-area is *good* to acknowledge. It's just reality that there's grey, not everything is completely black and white.

Happy to hear thoughts from others.

Cheers,
Aaron

On 01/16/2015 05:04 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> On 15 January 2015 at 19:29, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/>- s**ee how data can change the world
>
> ****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.  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>