[od-discuss] OD Summay

Mon Sep 14 21:28:29 UTC 2015

On 09/14/2015 02:24 PM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

Andrew, I agree with most everything you wrote. I urge everyone to
consider my suggestion: Leave the primary clean and clear sentence just
about "Open Knowledge" and add a second sentence that shows a list of
the sorts of things covered and don't make it really hard like "Open
Data and Open Content" because "content" is lousy, and these
distinctions are blurry. Say "Open data, art, science, education,
journalism, etc." — and make it a list of that sort that is broad enough
and includes the "etc" so that it is clear this is an *inclusive*
definition.

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com