[od-discuss] OD Summay

Mon Sep 14 09:57:14 UTC 2015

I do think you may want to mention "data" and "content" explicitly
somewhere in there e.g.

"Knowledge, data and content are ... " or somesuch.

Rufus

On 11 September 2015 at 15:40, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
how openness can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> |
@okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150914/f5863707/attachment-0003.html>