[od-discuss] Machine readability in v2.1

Wed Jul 29 13:40:36 UTC 2015

On 07/29/2015 08:14 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> Good suggested amendment Andrew. To summarize:
> 
> 1.4 Machine Readability____
> 
> __ __
> 
> The work should be provided in "machine-readable" form, that is one in
> which the content can easily be accessed and processed by a computer,
> and which is in form in which modifications to individual data/content
> elements can easily be performed.
> 
> 
> Rufus
> 
> 

My suggested variations:

1.3 Open Format

"The **work** *must* provided in an open format. An open format is one
which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and
can be fully read by at least one free/libre/open-source software tool."

1.4 Machine Processable Form Available

"Although best when included by default, the **work** *must* at least be
readily available upon request in a "machine-processable" open format
that is appropriate for working with and/or modifying the individual
data or content elements."

A lot of details are incorporated here in my specific wording which aims
to capture many different concerns (I went through several edits to get
to this point).

The gist here is:

* split 1.3 into two sections: 1.3 now emphaiszes a minimal open format
for distribution (e.g. non-DRM'ed PDF is okay for normal distribution,
proprietary formats are not) while 1.4 specifies the *availability* of
machine-processable data. Like with software, this says that binaries,
i.e. human-readable renderings are still "open" if they include
information about how to access the machine-processable data.

* Instead of just "computer" I think both issues need to emphasize FLO
software, and rather than too much redundancy, mentioning "open format"
in 1.4 seems functional.

* I added wording that better generalized the issues: "working with and
modifying" (analyzing data isn't about modifying it).

* This changes "should" into "must" for at least the *availability* of
the preferred source form for working-with/modifying. The only "should"
or "preferable" that is left is the inclusion of the source files by
default (as opposed to by request). Thus, this is a stronger requirement
for "machine readable data" but does not make the plain distribution of
rendered, human-readable forms automatically "non-open".

My wording may not be final, but the gist of these changes conceptually
make sense and should go forward. We could add something vague like "the
data or content elements vary based on the type of work". We could also
specify more about what "readily available upon request" entails if
necessary.

Best,
Aaron