[open-bibliography] More needed to define "open"

[Thad Guidry]

> 2. The data owner provides an open interface that allows searching and
>> linking. Linking needs to be bi-directional -- that the data can link out,
>> but also that others can "link in."
>>
>
> The main requirement IMO is that it is possible to know the extent of the
> data and *if necessary* download it systematically. That's the only way
> that it is truly open - it can be forked.
>
> I am not sure that link-in is always valuable. Can you explain? would all
> consumers link in?
>


You cannot always expect or push your world view upon others.

Linking in, is an option for the data provider if they consider and hold
your same world view for entities or your metadata in agreement.  If they
do not have the same world view as you, then they are not required to link
in (linking out).

There is nothing stopping yourself from linking out, however.

-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20130423/92aa8e22/attachment-0001.html>