[od-discuss] OD Summay

Fri Sep 11 13:40:53 UTC 2015

With the approval of 2.1 I think we can go ahead and align the various
summaries now to :

"Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it —
subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness."

I am happy to make the changes to the main opendefinition.org pages but I
am aware of at least one other place it is found (the OD Guide?).  So, I am
requesting that anyone who knows of other places where the summary exists
to please update it to match this new statement.

Thanks,
H

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:

> Sounds great to me. Mostly, I want that as the *one* summary, and we
> kill any additional summaries.
>
> On 04/20/2015 01:58 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> > I have examined all four versions (including Aarons suggestion).  I
> > think the one on the home page is best, with the word "requirements"
> > replaced by "measures":
> >
> > "Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
> > purpose (subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
> > openness)."
> >
> > This summary is just describing the adjective "open".  As a summary to
> > me it seems clean, and easy to use on it's own.  And, I think that's
> > mostly how it's used in conversation.
> >
> > It can be applied to nouns such as knowledge, data and works in
> general...
> >
> > Having the last part in parentheses implies that the rest of it could
> > stand on it's own - which it can grammatically, but I don't think it can
> > as a general assertion, so I would consider removing the brackets as
> well.
> >
> > Is there any reason we *need* to refer to knowledge, data or content in
> > the summary?  Can we leave it to the definition to apply the word "open"
> > and just stick to defining "open" in the summary?
> >
> > H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net
> > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     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 <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >     > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> >     > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     od-discuss mailing list
> >     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >     https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> >     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> > 250.704.6154
> > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> >
>
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150911/718c005d/attachment-0002.html>