[od-discuss] OD Summay
Herb Lainchbury
herb at dynamic-solutions.com
Tue Sep 15 19:32:52 UTC 2015
As per the suggestion by Rufus, I have created a Google Document here
listing all of the alternatives I know of and and providing space for new
suggestions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvndH4saPLzz85mQu74LWyTofHM1g1BDNppUFn6xULU/edit?usp=sharing
Hopefully this will help. Please join us in crafting a new summary
statement. :)
H
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
wrote:
> 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/>*
>
--
Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150915/b8951de8/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/b8951de8/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/b8951de8/attachment-0007.gif>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list