[od-discuss] A harmonised Open Format definition

[Mike Linksvayer]

On 04/22/2015 08:32 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 21/04/15 06:18 AM, Stephen Gates wrote:
>>
>> The work must be machine-readable and provided in an open format
>
> This is a good idea but the Open Definition refers to all kinds of
> knowledge, not just to data.
>
> Declaring HTML, PDF and bitmap image formats non-conformant would impact
> on OER and other key forms of Open Knowledge that are released e.g. as
> videos or as web sites. They would either be declared non-Open or have
> to wrap themselves in an xml fig-leaf.

Created pull request referring to this, diff at 
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/pull/104/files copy of rationale 
below:

- move bulk should to access
- machine-readibility is implied by format must be processable by a 
floss tool and is otherwise vague
- data should not be called out in particular. bulk access and 
convenient format issues equally apply to other sorts of works, eg 
streaming-only access to video is bad
- preferred form for modification also covers read/parsibility, and is a 
should not clear to me appropriate for open definition to completely 
rule out eg pdfs and lossy files as Rob Myers said in 
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2015-April/001339.html

Mike