[od-discuss] OD Summay

Mon Sep 14 21:24:06 UTC 2015

Hi

I suspect that there is far more agreed on with this issue than is apparent.
So I think we all agree that:

1. there is a legal distinction between what we are calling 'data' aka
facts and what we are (with some misgivings) calling content - data is not
subject copyright but collections of data are subject to database rights
(and possibly copyright in Australia).

2. the 'distinction' between data and 'content' doesn't necesarily make
sense when things are represented as 1's and 0's - a photograph may be a
copyright work but for Peter's purposes it may also be full of data and may
be machined processed to produce that data

3. the term knowledge seems to be the best overarching term that covers
data and 'content'. The other contender is 'information' but that has a
very discrete meaning given to it by Claude Shannon in information theory.

4. We would like to specify when a 'communication' or 'document'  in the
whole field that covers data and copyright works is open.

5. One reason for wanting the whole field open is because of problems with
the distinction between data and content - because technology is
challenging it, trying to only have 'open data' would risk be too narrow.

6. Another reason is that some of us (at least me :-)  ) value having
things which are not, or not yet 'data' open and the open definition
assists this as it was intended to do from the beginning AFAIK.

7. But there is still a distinction, for legal purposes at least.

8. The Open Definition relies on legal instruments that cover both
categories. For example CC 0 deals with both copyright and rights in data.

9. We want to deconstruct the distinction but only in the direction of
making more things open and not more things subject to copyright.

10. The term open knowledge best describes the whole field.

11. We or some of us want to be sure that people know that both categories
are included in the whole field so that they do not assume it applies only
to a particular category of knowledge. This goes beyond clearing up
misunderstanding, it is to prevent deliberate misrepresentation.

12. Therefore we have to say something like 'open knowledge includes open
data and "open content".

13. Some of us do not like the term 'content' and would like to find a
replacement - and that is something that would be useful more broadly.

Of course not everyone may agree with everything that I have set out here -
what I am trying to do is make clear where disagreement may arise.

Andrew Rens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150914/48d86f73/attachment-0003.html>