[OpenGLAM] Open Gallery by Google

[Cory Salveson]

While waiting for invites, I think we can learn something about Open
Gallery's approach to openness by looking at its support
page<https://support.google.com/opengallery/>,
which discusses metadata management. We can also look at the Google Docs
template<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjgMp2Fl90IgdE1NWmFhRmk0dmVLYlNZb2JRUU5va0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0>used
for importing metadata.

It's pretty limited: itemid; title; description; creator;
location:placename; date:start; date:end; filetype; and filespec. There's
guidance on what to enter in each field, but no real validation except for
the "filetype" field, which can be "image," "video," or "sequence," where
"sequence" means a set of files.

So, there's no real mention of licensing approach, or licensing metadata,
anywhere on the site that I can see. Presumably metadata on YouTube videos
could license *works *for reuse, but there doesn't seem to be any real
framework in the tool to define access to works generally or to underlying
collection data (although if the latter is a Google Doc, I suppose it could
be shared). It looks to be a pretty attractive gallery, then, but (to
return to earlier thread in the conversation) still only "kinda" open,
unless I'm missing something.

-Cory

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Jon Voss <jon.voss at wearewhatwedo.org>wrote:

> Yes, you do. I know several of us have requested them, but I haven't
> received anything after 2 days, and wondering if anyone else has.  It's
> hard for us to assess this at all if we haven't seen it.
>
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Noreen Whysel wrote:
>
> > I thought you had to request one.
> >
> >> True, gotta reward Open, not kinda Open, and use the same definition
> >> consistently, which is the good thing about the OKFN def. maybe Heath
> >> meant something more tongue-in-cheek, but I'm more of the mind of
> putting
> >> the good examples out front with incentives and the like.
> >>
> >> Speaking of not really open to all, has anyone gotten an actual Open
> >> Gallery invite yet??
> >>
> >> + + +
> >> Sent from mobile device
> >>
> >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/12/13 05:31 AM, heath rezabek wrote:
> >>>> This is why I think it could be a very useful role for the OKF (or
> >>>> someone) to have some kind of 'Openness Award" they can grant to
> >>>> organizations, or even some form of it that can call attention to
> >>>> projects that seem open but don't meet the Open Definition.  Such an
> >>>> effort would yield press awareness over time, and change as well.
> >>>
> >>> Rewarding not doing the right thing creates perverse incentives,
> though.
> >>>
> >>> Projects that seem open but aren't deserve (constructive, initially
> >>> private) criticism and offers of help, not praise.
> >>>
> >>> - Rob.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> open-glam mailing list
> >>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> >>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> open-glam mailing list
> >> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20131212/bb1f411c/attachment-0003.html>