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

Mon Jul 27 17:15:53 UTC 2015

As Stephen Gates explains here
<https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/68> , 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 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/>*
>

-- 
--
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150727/c13b263c/attachment-0003.html>