[od-discuss] OD Summay
Peter Murray-Rust
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Sep 14 16:39:32 UTC 2015
Surprisingly , ten years ago the term "Open Data" didn't exist. To protect
data from being closed by vested interests, I started an article/page on
Wikipedia (mutated to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science_data ).
I'd agree with the general theme that we shouldn't try to guess the future
and I wouldn't want to enumerate. However there is a danger of sticking to
narrow terms and I was worried some years ago that "Text and Data Mining"
would mean that we admitted that all images, audio, video, etc. was ipso
facto the property of others and couldn't be mined. So I suggested the term
ContentMining, and this has gained currency in European legislative
discussion, and highlights that it isn't just Text and Data.
(FWIW we have just mined 4300 articles for their *images* and have
extracted new science (
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2015/09/14/announce-microbial-supertree-through-contentmining/
. If we had acquiesced to "Text" we could not have done this. So in this
case "Content" is more permissive than "Text and Data".
Let's choose the broadest generic term we think we can reasonably defend.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Rufus that open data should be mentioned.
>
> We are making a claim about when data is open or not. That claim won't be
> heard very well if is not explicitly made about data.
> I suspect that Steven is right that quite a number of different people are
> going to try to attribute different meanings to the term 'open data' but
> unlike Steven I think that is all the more reason to clearly define the
> term. Imagine the kind of open washing that took place with open standards
> and 'open document format' taking place with open data. There will be
> attempts to define data as 'open' if its available on RAND terms or if you
> can pay a standards organisation to declare your standard compliant.
> I don't see any reason to acquiesce to that, and the history of the OOXML
> vs ODF saga gives good reason not to do so. Bob Sutor could explain.
>
> There is still currently an important distinction between 'data' and
> 'content' and its unlikely to change in a year. Data equates, more less, to
> facts, and facts are not subject to copyright. A datum (or data point if
> you must) is not subject to copyright or database rights. Only a collection
> of data i.e. a database is subject to database rights and then only in
> countries (primarily in the European Union) that have database legislation.
> A collection of data doesn't usually attract copyright. The result is that
> one category is automatically subject to copyright, the other category is
> subject to fewer rights in far fewer jurisdictions. However much these
> distinctions might be challenged by practise, by how computers operate they
> have a meaning that is relevant to the concept of open, which is at least
> partially a legal concept.
>
> Like Aaron and Stallman I find the term open 'content' problematic -but
> although accurate Stallman's alternatives 'works' or 'publications' won't I
> think be intuitively meaningful to people. If we could come up with an
> alternative that seems easily understood by most people I would use it -
> and not just here.
>
>
> Andrew Rens
>
>
>
> On 14 September 2015 at 11:12, Steven Adler <adler1 at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to intrude on this conversation but I would urge the group NOT to
>> list out what kinds of knowledge are Open. The artificial distinctions we
>> make today will create more tension and misunderstanding than
>> illumination. In the next year, Open Data will become a term with so many
>> meanings to so many different groups (like Big Data), that we should not
>> dare to declare now what is in it and what is not. Leave it open (pun
>> intended).
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>>
>> [image: Inactive hide details for Aaron Wolf ---09/14/2015 11:05:39
>> AM---I think "Open Data" is a more common term than "Open Content".]Aaron
>> Wolf ---09/14/2015 11:05:39 AM---I think "Open Data" is a more common term
>> than "Open Content". I doubt anyone searches for plain "Op
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>>
>>
>> Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net>
>>
>> To:
>>
>>
>> Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>>
>> "od-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>>
>> Date:
>>
>>
>> 09/14/2015 11:05 AM
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>>
>> Re: [od-discuss] OD Summay
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <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
>> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>>
>> > <mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
>> > <mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com <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 <wolftune at riseup.net>>
>> > > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net> <
>> mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <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 <wolftune at riseup.net>>
>> > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net> <
>> mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net>>>
>> > > > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net> <
>> mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net>>
>> > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <wolftune at riseup.net> <
>> mailto:wolftune at riseup.net <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 <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org> <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <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 <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org> <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>> > > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org> <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> <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
>> <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
>> > <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org> <
>> mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150914/e995a137/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150914/e995a137/attachment-0006.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150914/e995a137/attachment-0007.gif>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list