[od-discuss] OD Summay

[Aaron Wolf]

I added a comment on the GitHub link.

https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/9e853212a5690f1724e0b2a59808e91b7112c691#commitcomment-9979665

I hadn't noticed that issue before with the double definition that tries for concision but actually only makes the wording longer, more confusing, and adds redundancy.

Note that even the variations shown are inconsistent in the term "measures" vs "requirements" — I definitely prefer "measures" as it is more general and, I think, more appropriate for this summary.

For reference, the *additional* new proposal I added on GitHub is:

*"Open" means unrestricted.* Specifically, anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share any open data, open content, and other forms of open knowledge (subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness).

I'm not sure it's best, but it offers elements for consideration. I dislike the specification of "open data" and "open content" without reference to open knowledge. I prefer either "open knowledge" be included (and I could skip having "open content" ever mentioned but won't insist) or not use an noun examples.

I **strongly** agree that there should be one functional summary statement used in all cases.

Best,
Aaron
On 03/01/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 07:57 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> > In checking the text for the Ireland paper on licenses I realized we now
> > have three similar but distinct summary statements.
> >
> > Two on the landing page:
> >
> > “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
> > purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and
> > openness).”
> >
> > “Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by
> > anyone for any purpose”
> >
> > and one on the definition page:
> >
> > "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share
> > it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness."
> >
> >
> > Is there some good reason for this that I'm missing?
> >
> > My thinking is that we should have one unless there is some reason to
> > have more than one.
>
> Rufus added the third one at
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/9e853212a5690f1724e0b2a59808e91b7112c691#diff-e701188abab5b493e5915f1270430909
>
> I prefer only one on the home page and in the current OD version. We
> should be so happy with the summary in 2.1 that we don't feel a need to
> tweak for the home page.
>
> 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
>