[od-discuss] OD 2.1 draft

[Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou]

>> 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.

As expressed before, I strongly support the idea the OD should clearly
require open formats to keep pushing publishers on the best path possible.
Being able to tell administrations that their data is still not fully
compliant with opendefinition principles until they get rid of the
formatting into their xls files and republish them as csv can only help :)
I like the new wording, it's simplier and explicit!

>> 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.

I'd also prefer to keep the bulk requirement. I cannot see any example
where one could propose opendata without being able to provide it as a
whole. So the current wording "Data should be provided in bulk where
possible." actually could sound enough since it should always be possible
but in such case I'd agree with Rufus it could remain explicit like before,
for instance by dropping the last sentence and reputting bulk in the
description.

"The work must be machine-readable*, available in bulk* and provided in an
open format. An open format is one which places no restrictions, monetary
or otherwise, upon its use and can be processed with at least one
free/libre/open-source software tool."

Best,

Benjamin


>>
>> 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 Pollock
>
> Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>
> Open Knowledge - see how data can change the world
>
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | Open Knowledge on Facebook |  Blog
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150125/f949d5bc/attachment-0003.html>