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

Tue Jul 28 16:47:14 UTC 2015

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
>> <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
>
>

-- 

*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/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150728/22a44017/attachment-0003.html>