[od-discuss] OD Summay
Rufus Pollock
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon Sep 14 14:55:13 UTC 2015
I think this actually matters quite a bit.
Most people out there think of "open content" or "open data" - they don't
abstract to a generic term like open knowledge. Whilst we want to keep
knowledge central, at least on the front page and in page titles (valuable
for e.g. SEO) this is really useful. We want people when googling "open
data" to find this site pretty quickly as it provides the authoritative
definition of what open data is.
Rufus
On 14 September 2015 at 16:50, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> I weakly oppose the listing of what sort of knowledge we mean. As soon
> as you start listing examples, it can lead to the different classes of
> included in the list or not, and then the list grows into this attempt
> to include every variation.
>
> I think preferable to stick to an undefined generic term. "Knowledge"
> works here and we accept that it covers all sorts of areas. Data *is* a
> form of *content*, and actually, I very weakly sympathize with Stallman
> in disliking the very term "content" see
> https://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
> On 09/14/2015 02:57 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> > 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 <mailto: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
> > <http://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
> > <mailto: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>
> > > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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 <tel:250.704.6154>
> > > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> > 250.704.6154 <tel:250.704.6154>
> > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *
> >
> > **
> >
> > ****
> >
> > **Rufus Pollock**
> >
> > **Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
> > <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>**
> >
> > **Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>- s**ee how openness can change the
> world
> >
> > ****http://okfn.org/| @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>| Open Knowledge on
> > Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>| Blog
> > <http://blog.okfn.org/>***
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> music teacher, wolftune.com
>
--
*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/cb1b5f63/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list