[od-discuss] OD Summay
Aaron Wolf
wolftune at riseup.net
Mon Sep 14 18:45:24 UTC 2015
On 09/14/2015 11:31 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> " There is still currently an important distinction between 'data' and
> 'content' "
>
> I think this is a critical point. When I think of open data or open
> knowledge - I do not think of songs or movies or any other creative
> works. I think of facts. To me, the OD is a claim about when a
> collection of facts, or data, is considered open.
>
> I don't necessarily object to the definition being applied to songs or
> other creative works - but I don't see that as it's primary purpose -
> and this can be left more to other tools (CC for example) whose primary
> focus is creative works.
>
I disagree *strongly*. CC is a set of legal tools for *any* permissions
greater than "All Rights Reserved". CC themselves acknowledge the
Freedom Defined statement that only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are Free Culture
licenses, and that the NC and ND clauses are non-free.
The Freedom Defined stuff is nice, but is not as rigorous or clear or
maintained and active as OD. OD itself acknowledges CC licenses as
legitimate Open licenses.
If OD were only about factual data that was not subject to copyright,
that would change all sorts of things about how we deal with OD, and
what it even means.
> For this reason I would support putting the word "Data" back in to the
> summary.
>
> I am not 100% sure on this, but I would actually even consider replacing
> the word "Knowledge" with the word "Data", because to me "Knowledge"
> implies acquisition - which means there is an "acquirer" (a person doing
> the acquiring) - which may not be the case. The whole point to me is
> that "open" enables people to freely acquire facts (i.e. open
> knowledge), those facts are typically recorded and presented in
> collections as data, but the facts can be open whether or not anyone
> ends up utilizing that openness. The point is they are free to do so if
> the choose to but an "acquirer" is not required for openness. If no one
> ends up using the open data, it's still open.
>
I agree with your interpretation of the word "knowledge" and that it is
abstract in a way that is definitely not easy to concretely apply.
However, my suggestion for a second sentence mentioning the areas to
which this applies is better than trying to cram in specific listed
things into the main sentence.
More importantly, if the entire focus continues to be Open Data, then OK
should probably get renamed to the Open Data Initiative or something or
the Open Data Foundation, and we should give Public Domain Review over
to another organization.
I understand and acknowledge that Open Data is a big deal and has gotten
a lot of the focus here, but the Free Culture Foundation is not a real
active entity, CC is not set up to truly stand for free/open culture,
and OK already has a founding and works relevant to Open culture and
creative works.
It seems to me that all the push for everything to be Open Data is
clearly showing the need for really data-specific details and
definitions. If that's truly needed, we should accept that task. I see
it as *destructive* to throw non-data works under the bus and go to
interpreting the OD as not really appropriate for creative works. The
constructive direction is to figure out how to additionally add or
supplement things to address the needs and concerns of Open Data.
Respectfully,
Aaron
> Analysis or mining of text in this case seems okay to me. The fact that
> the word "daisy" occurs 42 times in the chapter of a book is a fact
> about the chapter - i.e. data... which can be made open regardless of
> whether or not the text of the book is open. The fact 42 exists at a
> different level of abstraction and seems to me would not enjoy copyright
> protection.
>
> H
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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"
>
> 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 <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net>>
>
> To:
>
>
> Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org
> <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>>
>
> Cc:
>
>
> "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>>
>
> 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>
> > <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
> > <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>
> > > <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 <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 <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 <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 <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>> <tel: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>> <tel: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 <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/| <http://okfn.org/%7C> @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>
> <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/| <http://okfn.org/%7C> @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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list