[open-bibliography] Wikipedia project: bibliographic-archival data base

Tue Sep 13 19:18:15 UTC 2011

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM, David Weinberger <self at evident.com> wrote:

> "A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse,
> and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to
> attribute and share-alike"
>
> That describes any data you can get via LibraryCloud's API.
>

That is good news. Does it also mean "you can download as much data as you
like under those conditions"? [subject to consideration to the server] Or
that there is a limit?

>
> I know that's not exactly what you want the stated definition to mean,
> but it is what the definition says.
>

I don't understand this sentence. Does it mean that I have misinterpreted
OKD? Or that LibraryCloud API is not OKD-compliant?

>
> As for the attempt to enforce a particular and precise definition of a
> term already in common (and thus usefully sloppy) use: There's value
> in the attempt, so long as it's understood that the precise definition
> will only be enforceable and understood within particular contexts.
> This list is one of the those contexts for "open."
>

The critical question is what you are legally allowed to do. Nothing
overrides the law (although it differs by domain). Licences are legal
documents. They are useful but very blunt.

OSI-compliant codes all have their licences which are legal documents. If
you break those contracts you may be pursued by lawyers. The OSI declaration
effectively says "there are a very wide range of cases wher you can re-use
this code without worrying about minute details of the licence". Yes, I have
been through detailed licence stuff, including negotiations with FSF and
Microsoft so I understand that details can matter. But to a first
approximation an OSI-licence makes a large number of actions clear.

In contrast saying that Harvard API makes things "open" in some undefined
sense gives me no useful information. There are people/organizations who use
"open" to describe their materials who will sue you for ANY redistribution.
One well-known supplier of library systems announced an "Open API". I asked
them if I was allowed to publish their API. No, it was strictly confidential
and anyone who did would be subject to legal action. Here "Open" seemed to
mean "privately documented". Or perhaps it was simply a marketing term, such
as "healthy".

I have been urging the OA community to label their material better and am
glad to see that after ten years they have adopted "gratis" and "libre". In
my view "libre" is more or less synonymous with OKD. I cannot see
libre-with-conditions attatched.

And remember that this is NOT an academic debate. By assuming "open" is
useful you could be paying for a product that you will be sued if you re-use
it.  The solution of requiring everyone to read every licence in detail is
no solution. That is why the OSI and the OKF have spent a lot of time
reading licences and declaring them as compliant or not-compliant. IMO
that's a considerable step forward. It's not religion, it's pragmatism.

>
> David W.
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Roy Tennant <tennantr at oclc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/13/11 9/13/11 € 9:20 AM, "Jim Pitman" <pitman at stat.Berkeley.EDU>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Either data is open, and it is possible to get hold of the entire
> >> > dataset with a clear open license for what you can so with it. Or it
> is
> >> > not
> >> > open.
> >>
> >> Rather than sit back and allow David to be hoisted on his own petard, I
> >> feel
> >> it necessary to point out a few things. This list does not own the term
> >> "open" and neither does it get to declare when the use of it is
> >> appropriate.
> >> You DO get to declare a set of terms around a specific use of it, such
> as
> >> "open as defined by the Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data" but
> >> that's
> >> about it.
> >
> > The OKF has defined "Open Knowledge" in the Open Definition
> >
> >> The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) sets out principles to define
> >> ‘openness’ in knowledge – that’s any kind of content or data ‘from
> sonnets
> >> to statistics, genes to geodata’. The definition can be summed up in the
> >> statement that “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to
> use,
> >> reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement
> to
> >> attribute and share-alike.”.
> >
> > It is generally accepted on lists run by the OKF that "Open" refers to
> this
> > definition.
> >
> > When using this concept elsewhere  I either capitalize it ("Open") or use
> > "OKD-compliant" to make it clear that there is a formal definition.
> >
> > The lax use of "open" adds no value. If the word can be defined to mean
> > whatever the author likes, then it is redundant (unless specifically
> > defined). Thus there is no difference between:
> >
> > "the data are openly available"
> > and
> > "the data are available"
> >
> > There is great importance in defining what is meant by "open". The Open
> > Source community has put great effort into this through the Open Source
> > Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/ ). It has now been able to reach
> the
> > stage where "Open Source" is universally understood as "OSI-compliant".
> >
> > By contrast the Open Access movement has taken a decade to converge on a
> > practical definition of Open Access. This matters; if an author has to
> pay
> > 3000 USD to have a paper regarded as Open Access it is important that we
> > know what it means (and in many cases we still don't, precisely).
> >>
> >> This is also why the kind of discussion that might reveal the nuances of
> >> "open" cannot happen here due to religious-style zealotry. If something
> >> isn't "open" according to your strict standards it isn't open at all.
> This
> >> completely misses the fact that "open" as in the Harvard API may be
> >> completely fine and useful for nearly all real world purposes.
> >
> > This is not religious; it's practical. If we are going to use "open" as a
> > useful label then it has to be defined. If people are going to pay money,
> or
> > change their business model, then it should be crystal clear.
> >
> > "open" as in "the Harvard API" adds no information. Instead call it "the
> > Harvard conditions" and point us at the place where they are PRECISELY
> > defined. And precise definitions matter. If we do something that is not
> > allowed we may end up being sued. If we don't know what is allowed then
> we
> > either break the rules or are too afraid to do anything.
> >
> > The advantage of the OKD is that it is universal and almost always
> trivial
> > to understand and implement. There may be cases where it isn't
> appropriate -
> > fine - but in that case you should describe precsiely what you want and
> what
> > you don't want. And that has to be explainable to everyone involved. The
> OSI
> > found that writing your own licence was very complex and dangerous - so
> most
> > people use an OSI-compliant licence
> >
> >>
> >> If I can accomplish useful work with Harvard's API (and I likely can,
> >> although I haven't yet tested it out), then great. Whether I can
> download
> >> the entire dataset may be completely immaterial (and usually is) to
> >> getting
> >> that useful work accomplished. But then practicality isn't what this
> group
> >> is about, it's about religion. Now I will go back to lurking, where I
> >> expect
> >> to take my lumps like a man. Wake me up again when you're ready to have
> >> that
> >> nuanced discussion.
> >
> > The OKF welcomes everyone - it is not relligious and very practical. Its
> > definition is being adopted by publishers, funders, governments beacuse
> > *they* need precise guidelines. For example it took two years' work to
> > create the Panton Principles for Open Science data
> > http://pantonprinciples.org/ and Open Access publishers such as Biomed
> > Central are now adopting them because they are *useful*. The Open
> > Bibliography principles follow the same philosophy. We believe they are
> > useful in the same way.
> >
> > Please stay with us
> >
> > P.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-bibliography mailing list
> > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-bibliography mailing list
> > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20110913/ee9a64d9/attachment-0001.html>