[okfn-discuss] Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

[Iain Emsley]

Dear all,

Comments on Rufus's specifics below but I have a question. Should there 
be a definition about the methodologies of any data / services offered?

Just thinking of any service that might pull in data from a social 
network (the "friends" may not know about their data being pulled in to 
another service and may not agree - an ongoing argument I believe) or 
using social science or, for instance, medical or other scientific data, 
amongst other forms. If a SaaS is offering a service based on data, it 
must be in the user's interests in knowing the source of any data. If 
you cannot verify the data or the source, any results based thereon must 
be suspect because an end user cannot follow the bread crumbs. Similarly 
if data is manipulated in any fashion, the methodolog(y/ies) must be 
announced to the end user and, again, the source be present to trace the 
original data to prove or re-run any tests or to test the 
methodolog(y/ies).
> 1. Naming: should it be Free/Open Service Definition or just plain Open Service Definition?
>   
I prefer Open  Service Definition: it would at least cover any service 
which may buy in data and free it up. I wonder whether the semantics of 
free mightconfuse any users of either variety (i.e., the license or the 
service).
> 2. URL: should we go for the short 'osd' or the longer 
> 'open_service_definition' (or even just 'open_service' or 
> 'free_open_service').
> Open Service Defintion might play more friendly with search engines and the fewer acronyms the better IMHO. 
>
>   
Iain

Iain Emsley