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

Tue Jul 28 16:27:27 UTC 2015

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
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150728/35a41b3b/attachment-0003.html>