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

[Andrew Rens]

Hi

Perhaps it would be useful to be specific about "machine readable" in
respect of data but expressly state that this specificity flows from  the
general principle in 1.3
"The work *should* be provided in the form preferred for working with and
making modifications to it"  or whatever the final wording is agree.
Additional wording would then stipulate: "When a work consists of or
contains data then the preferred form for that data is a form that enables
a recipient use automated processes to use or modify the data as a whole or
in part."

This would help by showing how the principle would be applied to one kind
of knowledge.

Of course automated processes like machine readable requires some
refinement - algorithmic processes perhaps?

Andrew



Andrew Rens



On 28 July 2015 at 15:59, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150728/33af17e8/attachment-0003.html>