[od-discuss] OD Summay

Aaron Wolf wolftune at riseup.net
Mon Sep 14 15:04:17 UTC 2015


I think "Open Data" is a more common term than "Open Content". I doubt
anyone searches for plain "Open Content".

If we are to have a separate definition of "Open Data" specifically,
separate from the main OD, then we could add a reference that links to that.

I *would* support a separate sentence (not cluttering the main intro to
the OD) that says something like, "Open Knowledge includes a wide range
of areas including Open Data, Open Art, Open Journalism, Open Research,
Open Education, and more."

On 09/14/2015 07:55 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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>
>     >     <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>
>     >     <mailto: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>>
>     >         > <mailto: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>>
>     >         <mailto: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>>
>     >         <mailto: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> <tel:250.704.6154
>     <tel:250.704.6154>>
>     >         > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>     >         >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >
>     >     Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
>     >     250.704.6154 <tel:250.704.6154> <tel: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>
>     <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
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > *
>     >
>     > **
>     >
>     > ****
>     >
>     > **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 <http://wolftune.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *
> 
> **
> 
> ****
> 
> **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



More information about the od-discuss mailing list