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

Tue Jul 28 17:07:53 UTC 2015

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