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

Tue Jul 28 17:21:37 UTC 2015

On 07/28/2015 01:07 PM, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou 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
> 
> 

Adding "Data must be machine readable" to the end of 1.3 sounds fine to
me. Let's do that.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com