[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft - Open Format

Wed Jul 29 04:13:33 UTC 2015

I’d like to test my understanding of 1.3 Open Format in the current draft.

Someone publishes an open format photograph of tabular data - is it open?
Given the current draft:
“The work must be provided in an open format. An open format is one which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can be fully processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool. The work should be provided in the form preferred for making modifications to it.”  

Then, in the example above, you could argue that by publishing the work as a photo, you have placed a restriction on the work being fully processed – hence it is not open.  But when you apply the last  sentence, then the work may be open.

Given the definition for "Should": 
“SHOULD - This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.” - RFC2119.

So:
If you only had a hard copy of the tabular data and you published a photo of it, then it is Open.
If you photographed the tabular data as shown on your computer screen in Excel, then it is Not Open. 
Is that how others interpret the draft definition?

Preferred:
I get stuck on the word “preferred”.  Who’s preference is it – the publisher or the consumer? One consumer may prefer XML and another CSV, and the publisher something else.

Perhaps, “The work should be provided in an open format that allows it to be modified”.

I know “allows” was not supported in discussions at github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/68  but now that we have "must" in the preceding sentence, perhaps “allows” is a little more acceptable as the format can be fully processed by open source software.

I'm happy the machine-readable is implied by the definition above. "Machine-readable" causes it's own set of issues  that I previously explored - http://opendefinition.org/ofd/   

Fully Processed:
Along a different line of thinking, If the work must be able to be fully processed and fully processing includes modification, then the last sentence is not need and we just got stricter.

I don't mind we're we land on this but I just suggesting some potential points of confusion.

Asides:
I plan to update opendefinition.org/ofd/ and focus down on open formats and add content from github.com/okfn/opendatacensus/issues/585
I'm thinking about creating a set of examples on opendefinition.org/ofd/ to provide practical advice on what counts as an open format - thoughts?
Was a decision made about moving the mailing list to the Open Knowledge Discussion Forum discuss.okfn.org/ 
thanks
Stephen Gates

On 29 Jul, 2015,at 03:08 AM, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.ooghe at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes I agree also that the "as a whole" is fine regarding "bulk"

As Rufus pointed out my main concern left is on machine-readability.
Aaron I understand we want the OD to handle a larger picture than just
data, but since it has historically been used primarily for data, I
just want to make sure we can keep doing it afterwards and do not lose
actual specific requirements.
That's I why I proposed to simply replace the blurred "in a form
preferred" sentenced with a sentence precising the specific case of
data as It was agreed on earlier in the process.
As such, 1.3 first concerns "work" globally. Having at the end a "Data
must be machine readable" would add the proper precision.

Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
I also think "as a whole" is also satisfactory (though I like bulk too ;-)
...).

On the "machine readability" point I really think that has got a bit lost as
Benjamin also suggested. I don't think "in a form preferred for making
modifications" quite does it. I really wonder if for this we want a 1.4 as
it is so central and is distinct from open format.

I do apologize for coming in a bit late on this process and want to
acknowledge the huge improvements we have seen and efforts towards that - as
well as the exemplary cat-herding from Herb and others!

Rufus

On 28 July 2015 at 17:27, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds at theodi.org> wrote:

Personally I'm fine with "as a whole", I think it conveys the intention
well enough. "Bulk" does seem like jargon to me.

Cheers,

L.

On 27 July 2015 at 18:15, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>
wrote:

As Stephen Gates explains here , 2.1 the "bulk" requirement is now a
*must*. We use the words "as a whole" rather than "bulk" so, 2.1 starts of
as:

"The work must be provided as a whole and..."

We could instead say something like:

"The work must be provided in bulk and..."

but "bulk" seems to me like data specific jargon so seems a bit out of
place to me used with "The work".

I think the question to ask is - does "as a whole" sufficiently convey
what we mean here? If so, then I think 2.1 stands as is. If not, then
let's tweak it so it does explicitly convey what we want.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
wrote:

I'm also +1 on a strong explicit bulk statement.

On 19 July 2015 at 21:58, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.ooghe at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Herb and everyone, and thanks a lot for the mailing-list notice.

I seem to have missed the latest updates regarding 1.3 and I'm only
catching up now which I feel a bit guilty about... :/

I've been exploring all the latest commits and I'm worried the
successive changes have lost in the way both references to bulk access
(which was indeed moved to 1.2, but then removed as redundant with "as
a whole"), and to machine-readability (which makes me feel like
current 1.3 could make now pdf acceptable for data for instance)

In exchange we got this final sentence that sounds a bit unclear and
blurred to me : "The work should be provided in the form preferred for
making modifications to it."

Although I understand we want to go forward a more global
opendefinition than one adressing only data, I feel like it will still
be one of the reference documents for data and should then still have
clear precisions regarding them.

So with this in mind, I feel like one of the previous formulation of
Art 1.3 in the rewriting process was a lot more clear and adressing
this matter of expliciting specifically for data these two required
features : "Data must be machine-readable and should be provided in
bulk."
(cf this version

https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/2766b3fd209799993d5ada55a3e7ac92a5d1115c/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown#13-open-format
)

Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Herb Lainchbury
<herb.lainchbury at gmail.com> wrote:
> After further discussion, consideration and much input from various
> people
> in the community I think we're ready to consider the current Open
> Definition
> draft 2.1 dev for acceptance.
>
> You can find the current draft 2.1 dev version here:
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
>
> The actual diff can be viewed here: http://git.io/vm6W8
> (note: this diff includes all changes to the repository so use the
> "Files
> Changed" tab to see just the changes to the
> "source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown" file.
>
> The main discussions centred around the preamble as well as clauses
> 1.3,
> 2.2.3, 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.
>
> Most of the issues addressed are also documented here:
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A2.1
>
>
> Please pay particular attention to 1.3 in your review as that clause
> was one
> of the main reasons for this update and we want to ensure it is as
> good as
> we can make it. See discussions here and here and here.
>
> An attribution clause has also been added to the definition to
> recognize the
> work the definition is based on.
>
>
> Please submit any further comments on the od-discuss list.
>
> Please take this opportunity to raise any final objections to voting
> on
> final acceptance of this draft. If no objections are received I will
> call
> for a vote in approximately one week.
>
>
> Please disseminate this note further as you see fit and if you know
> of
> another list that we should notify, please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
> Herb Lainchbury
> Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council
>
> ----------
>
> In summary, the changes from 2.0 to the current 2.1dev are:
>
> Preamble
>
> - reference to OSD changed to wikipedia
>
> - change to summary section to simplify and improve clarity of the
> term
> **license**
>
>
> 1.
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
>
> 1.2
>
> - from shall to must and from preferable to should
>
>
> 1.3
>
> - from "or" to "and"
>
> - from "processed" to "fully processed"
>
> - removed bulk suggestion - already covered in 1.2
>
> - added *should* be provided in form preferred for making
> modifications to
> it
>
>
> 2.
>
> - added “should be compatible”
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
> 2.2
>
> - changed shall to must
>
> 2.2.1
>
> - added missing comma
>
> 2.2.3
>
> -The **license** *may* require copies or derivatives of a licensed
> work to
> remain under a license the same as or similar to the original.
>
> +The **license** *may* require distributions of the work to remain
> under the
> same license or a similar license.
>
> 2.2.5
>
> -The **license** *may* require modified works to be made available in
> a form
> preferred for further modification.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that anyone distributing the work
> provide
> recipients with access to the preferred form for making
> modifications.
>
>
> 2.2.6
>
> -The **license** *may* prohibit distribution of the work in a manner
> where
> technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise
> allowed
> rights.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that distributions of the work remain
> free of
> any technical measures that would restrict the exercise of otherwise
> allowed
> rights.
>
>
>
> Attribution
> +The Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source
> Definition,
> which in turn was derived from the original Debian Free Software
> Guidelines,
> and the Debian Social Contract of which they are a part, which were
> created
> by Bruce Perens and the Debian Developers. Bruce later used the same
> text in
> creating the Open Source Definition. This definition is substantially
> derivative of those documents and retains their essential principles.
> Richard Stallman was the first to push the ideals of software freedom
> which
> we continue.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-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

--
--
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

--
Leigh Dodds, Senior Consultant, theODI.org
@ldodds
The ODI, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE

--

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150729/a31b300e/attachment-0002.html>