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

Tue Jul 28 19:59:46 UTC 2015

On 07/28/2015 03:44 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 10:21 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Looks like superfluous jargon to me:
> 
> - the underlying issue of works being provided in a manner that the work
> in question can be easily processed and manipulated is not specific to
> data (even from a data-centric worldview, eg to mine data from 'content')
> 

I am willing to consent to others' concerns, but I'm with Mike: 'should
be provided in the form preferred for making modifications to it' — in
principle, that means you have data you can actually use, i.e.
machine-readable if that's the way you would usually manage the data.

But, I could see changing 'making modifications' to 'working with and
modifying' — working with data may be analyzing it but not modifying the
data. So, to do analysis, you'd want it to be machine-readable, but this
is independent of modifying the data.

So, I think we need to have a better generalized wording here.

I suggest 'provided in the form preferred for working with and making
modifications to it'

My concern here is about the "must" vs "should" aspect: If we used
"must" would that say that my video is not "open" unless I provide all
the source files? I have mixed feelings about that but certainly don't
want it any stronger than "available upon request". We don't want to
block the distribution of videos by making *all* distributions
necessarily include all source files.

> - machine-readability is not defined (with respect to what? eg a bitmap
> image is read by a machine, even if it is encodes a scan of 'data' from
> a printout)
> 

I had this same concern about "machine-readability", but I thought
qualifying this as data-specific would be acceptable. But I'm not sure.

> Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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