[okfn-br] Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major Update of Essential Standard for Open Data and Open Content
Everton Zanella Alvarenga
tom em okfn.org.br
Terça Outubro 7 18:43:20 UTC 2014
Jorge,
acho que podemos criar um pad, irmos melhorando juntos, e depois subimos no
repositório da open defnition
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition
Seria legal com o lançamento da versão 2.0
<https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/od/2.0/en/index.markdown>
fazermos uma melhoria da versão em português do Brasil
<http://opendefinition.org/od/1.1/pt-br/>, inclusive usarmos 'conhecimento
livre' ao invés de 'conhecimento aberto'.
Abraços,
Tom
2014-10-07 14:17 GMT-03:00 Jorge Machado <machado em usp.br>:
> Olá pessoas,
>
> Foi iniciada uma revisão da Definição de "aberto"
> (http://opendefinition.org/od/), confome msg mais abaixo.
>
> É uma oportunidade para corrigir duas coisas no que se refere a "acesso":
> - parte da redação induz a um erro tanto de interpretação sobre o
> significado de "one-time reproduction cost" (vejam as traduções ao
> português e ao espanhol)
> - e outro aspecto de fundo político ao aceitar *o acesso pago como
> "aberto"* (incrível!). Essa "preferência" por ser "sem custos" tem que
> cair. Tem que descer no muro :). No final, está pior que a definição de
> acesso aberto da OAI
> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Open_Access_Initiative#Definition_of_open_access
> ).
>
> O sublinhado é meu:
>
>
> 1.2 Access
>
> The *work* shall be available as a whole and at no more than _a
> reasonable one-time reproduction cost_, _preferably__downloadable
> via the Internet __without charge_. Any additional information
> necessary for license compliance (such as names of contributors
> required for compliance with attribution requirements) /must/ also
> accompany the work.
>
> */Nova redação/**:*
>
>
> 1.2 Access
>
> The *work* shall be available as a whole and without_technical
> obstacles, preferably downloadable via the Internet_. Any additional
> information necessary for license compliance (such as names of
> contributors required for compliance with attribution requirements)
> /must/ also accompany the work.
>
> Talvez não seja o que exatamente queriam comunicar quando escreveram a
> primeira versão, mas essa outra redação me parece bem mais razoável.
>
> Outra pergunta é se vale a pena elaborar uma porposta da OKBr ou se
> fazemos contribuições individuais para a consulta.
>
> abs
> Jorge/
> /
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Assunto: [okfn-discuss] ANN: Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major
> Update of Essential Standard for Open Data and Open Content
> Data: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:28:45 +0100
> De: Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock em okfn.org>
> Responder a: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
> <okfn-discuss em lists.okfn.org>
> Para: okfn-discuss <okfn-discuss em lists.okfn.org>
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> Here's the announce for the Open Definition v2.0. It is also posted on
> the blog at:
>
>
>
> http://blog.okfn.org/2014/10/07/open-definition-v2-0-released-major-update-of-essential-standard-for-open-data-and-open-content/
>
>
> Please do share this announce with relevant communities and organizations!
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Rufus
>
>
> *ANN: Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major Update of Essential Standard
> for Open Data and Open Content*
>
>
> Today Open Knowledge and the Open Definition Advisory Council are
> pleased to announce the release of version 2.0 of the Open Definition
> <http://opendefinition.org/>. The Definition “sets out principles that
> define openness in relation to data and content†and plays a key role
> in supporting the growing open data ecosystem <http://okfn.org/opendata/>.
>
>
> Recent years have seen an explosion in the release of open data by
> dozens of governments including the G8. Recent estimates by McKinsey put
> the potential benefits of open data at over $1 trillion and others
> estimates put benefits at more than 1% of global GDP.
>
>
> However, these benefits are at significant risk both from quality
> problems such as “open-washing†(non-open data being passed off as
> open) and from fragmentation of the open data ecosystem due to
> incompatibility between the growing number of “open†licenses.
>
>
> The Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>eliminates these risks
> and ensures we realize the full benefits of open by  guaranteeing
> quality and preventing incompatibility. See this recent post for more
> about why the Open Definition is so important
> <
> http://blog.okfn.org/2014/09/30/why-the-open-definition-matters-for-open-data-quality-compatibility-and-simplicity/
> >.
>
>
> Created in 2005, this new version of the Open Definition
> <http://opendefinition.org/>is the most significant revision in the
> Definition’s nearly ten-year history and reflects more than a year of
> discussion and consultation with the community including input from
> experts involved in open data, open access, open culture, open
> education, open government, and open source. As well as major
> revisions to the text there is a new process for reviewing licenses
> which has been trialled with major governments including the UK.
>
>
> The Open Definition was published in 2005 by Open Knowledge and is
> maintained today by an expert Advisory Council. This new version of the
> Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>is the most significant
> revision in the Definition’s nearly ten-year history.
>
>
> It reflects more than a year of discussion and consultation with the
> community including input from experts involved in open data, open
> access, open culture, open education, open government, and open source.
> Whilst there are no changes to the core principles, the Definition has
> been completely reworked with a new structure and revised text as well
> as a new process for reviewing licenses (which has been trialled with
> governments including the UK).
>
>
> Herb Lainchbury, Chair of the Open Definition Advisory Council
> <http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/>, said:
>
>
> ‘The Open Definition describes the principles that define
> “openness†in relation to data and content, and is used to assess
> whether a particular licence meets that standard. A key goal of this
> new version is to make it easier to assess whether the growing number of
> open licenses actually make the grade. The more we can increase
> everyone’s confidence in their use of open works,  the more they will
> be able to focus on creating value with open works.’
>
>
> Rufus Pollock, President and Founder of Open Knowledge
> <http://www.okfn.org>said:
>
>
> ‘Since we created the Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>in
> 2005 it has played a key role in the growing open data and open content
> communities. It acts as the ‘gold standard’ for open data and
> content guaranteeing quality and preventing incompatibility. As a
> standard, the Open Definition plays a key role in underpinning the
> ‘open knowledge economy’ with a potential value that runs into the
> hundreds of billions - or even trillions - worldwide.’
>
>
> What’s New
>
> In process for more than a year, the new version was collaboratively
> <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition>and openly
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/>developed
> <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition>withinput from e
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/>xperts involved in open
> access, open culture, open data, open education, open government, open
> source and wiki communities. The new version of the definition:
>
>
> *
>
> Has a complete rewrite of the core principles - preserving their
> meaning but using simpler language and clarifying key aspects.
>
> *
>
> Introduces a clear separation of the definition of an open license
> from an open work (with the latter depending on the former). This
> not only simplifies the conceptual structure but provides a proper
> definition of open license and makes it easier to “self-assessâ€
> licenses for conformance with the Open Definition.
>
> *
>
> The definition of an Open Work <http://opendefinition.org/od/>within
> the Open Definition is now a set of three key principles:
>
> o
>
> Open License: The workmust be available under an open license
> (as defined in the following section but this includes freedom
> to use, build on, modify and share).
>
> o
>
> Access: The work shall be available as a whole and at no more
> than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost, preferably
> downloadable via the Internet without charge
>
> o
>
> Open Format: The workmust be provided in a convenient and
> modifiable form such that there are no unnecessary technological
> obstacles to the performance of the licensed rights.
> Specifically, data should be machine-readable, available in
> bulk, and provided in an open format or, at the very least, can
> be processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software
> tool.
>
> *
>
> Includes improved license approval process to make it easier for
> license creators to check conformance of their license with the Open
> Definition and to encourage reuse of existing open licenses
> (rrareuse and outlines the process for submitting a license so that
> it can be checked for conformance against the Open Definition.
>
>
> More Information
>
> *
>
> For more information about the Open Definition including the updated
> version visit: http://opendefinition.org/
>
> *
>
> For background on why the Open Definition matters, read the recent
>  article ‘Why the Open Definition
> Matters’<
> http://blog.okfn.org/2014/09/30/why-the-open-definition-matters-for-open-data-quality-compatibility-and-simplicity/
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-br mailing list
> okfn-br em lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br
>
>
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-br/attachments/20141007/c7519c44/attachment-0005.html>
Mais detalhes sobre a lista de discussão okfn-br