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

[Rufus Pollock]

On 14/07/08 16:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Great. It seems there is consensus. I've updated the page (and renamed
>> it) and I think we can now officially launch the Open Software Service
>> Definition (OSSD):
>>
>>   <http://www.opendefinition.org/ossd/>
> 
> Congratulations!

Thanks -- though that is a general congratulations to the whole 
community that has helped develop the ideas embodied in the definition.

> Well, I guess it is too late, but I don't get "software service".
> John Bywater wrote a few days ago 'Yet overall, I do feel the name
> "software service" is much more common than "network service", and as
> such a much better thing to conjoin with "open" and "definition".'
> 
> Not if you check authoritative sources, like Google and Wikipedia. :)

You should have spoken up earlier -- though the danger would be we would 
have never reached agreement :) Perhaps this is something we can keep 
open for the v1.1 (or v2.0) which will undoubtedly be necessary as more 
precise use-cases (and edge-cases) come in over time.

It does seem that none of the suggested names were perfect (for example 
several people I've mentioned Open Network Services too think their 
about rules for ISPs).

> This is the first I've heard of "software service" to mean SaaS, as
> opposed to some kind of professional service around software or a
> daemon running locally.  By contrast, "network service" is crystal
> clear.  Maybe SaaS will naturally collapse to "software service" and
> this will be moot.  Hopefully this definition will be wildly
> successful and help make that happen.

The key point is that we get the idea of 'freedom/openness' in relation 
to services clearly out there together with the reasons why it is 
important. As you say, while names are important they are certainly not 
the be all and end all the crucial point is to get across the ideas they 
represent (and to that end any label, if clearly understood, will be 
adequate).

Regards,

Rufus