[od-discuss] OD Summay
Rufus Pollock
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Tue Sep 15 17:22:35 UTC 2015
On 14 September 2015 at 20:31, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
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.
>
Whilst I think data is very important I think content has been too. The
Definition has *always* been about both content and data and I think we
should maintain that - this has been a very useful thread btw for
clarifying people's current understanding :-)
> 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.
>
Woah ;-) This is a big one. CC most definitely does not provide this
service - i.e. providing a definition. CC does *not* provide a standard in
the way the definition does as evidenced by the fact that several CC
licenses are not open (and the licenses as group are not all mutually
compatible). CC licenses are fantastic and have been a huge benefit but
they do not provide a standard to underpin an open information commons. [1]
[1]:
http://blog.okfn.org/2012/10/04/making-a-real-commons-creative-commons-should-drop-the-non-commercial-and-no-derivatives-licenses/
> For this reason I would support putting the word "Data" back in to the
> summary.
>
One thought here would be for us to draft up in a doc or issue the actual
planned refactor of the front page text - i'm starting to struggle to track
the actual potential alternatives here :-)
I'm, unsurprisingly given my significant role in authoring it, quite happy
with the front page as it is.
> 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.
>
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.
>
This seems a different issue. The definition still provides a *definition*
of what open data or content *is* - whether a given piece of content or
data is open is a matter for that particular case.
Rufus
>
> H
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
--
*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/20150915/0f95ce0a/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/20150915/0f95ce0a/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/20150915/0f95ce0a/attachment-0007.gif>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list