[od-discuss] OD Summay
Rufus Pollock
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon Sep 14 15:55:05 UTC 2015
Hi,
I'm *definitely* not suggesting a separate definition. I'm simply saying
that on the main page when we summarize the definition and in general copy
on e.g. front page that we make clear that open knowledge, data and content
are all covered by the definition.
Rufus
On 14 September 2015 at 17:04, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> 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
>
--
*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/20150914/9c158480/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list