[open-literature] Panton Principles for Humanities

[Jonathan Gray]

Fantastic work!

Just to check: is this supposed to be the Open Knowledge Definition
(http://opendefinition.org/)?

All the best,

Jonathan

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM, James Harriman-Smith
<open-shakespeare at okfn.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Over the last few weeks, we've been working on adapting the Panton
> Principles (a set of guidelines for encouraging and clarifying the use of
> open data in the sciences) to the humanities. We've reached a point where
> we'd love to have feedback from the community, so please do read on and
> email back to the list with your thoughts. I'll begin with the short
> version, followed by an expanded text, explaining and defining our terms a
> little more.
> (the original Panton principles are here: http://pantonprinciples.org/
> 1 = "When publishing a work, an explicit and robust statement about the uses
> to which all elements of that work (including annotation, introduction,
> index, etc.) may be put."
> 2 = "Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for that work."
> 3 = "If you want your work to be effectively used, adapted (remixed), and
> added to by others it should be open as defined by the Open Content
> Definition – in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses
> should not be used." ( - make it into link to OpenDef pages)
> 4 = "Explicit dedication of annotations, editorial matter, etc. embedded in
> the published work to the public domain is strongly recommended and ensures
> compliance with the Open Content Definition."
> 5 = "Explicit declaration of sources is strongly recommended, regardless of
> their copyright status, in order to foster a culture of both 'attibute' and
> 'share-alike'."
> Version with notes:
> 1) "When publishing a work, an explicit and robust statement about the uses
> to which all elements of that work (including annotation, introduction,
> index, etc.) may be put."
> - The original Panton Principles talk about 'data'. We chose not to keep
> this word as talking about humanities' 'data' seemed unclear and potentially
> limiting. 'Work', a term already used to describe everything from plays to
> sonatas, letters, sculptures and printed objects, provided a term both
> recognisable to any humanist and sufficiently large to cover the scope of
> potential cultural artefacts covered by these principles. 'Content',
> although tempting, was felt to ignore such important elements as, say, in
> the case of books, annotations, critical notes, printing and publishing
> choices, etc.
> - 'Work' also puts the focus on the 'finished' object, one that is
> considered ready for publication (/performing/broadcasting/exhibition,
> etc.). These principles are, after all, meant to guide those looking to
> publish something in an open way.
> - Finally, to repeat a line from the original Panton Principles: "this
> statement should be precise, irrevocable, and based on an appropriate and
> recognized legal statement in the form of a waiver or license."
> 2) "Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for that work."
> - Unlike those working in the domain of scientific data, some of the best
> known licences are appropriated for work in the humanities. Creative Commons
> is one, as is the FreeArt licence (see:
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ for why.)
>
> 3) "If you want your work to be effectively used, adapted, and added to by
> others it should be open as defined by the Open Content Definition – in
> particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be
> used."
> - The Open Content definition is here: http://opendefinition.org/, content
> is taken here only because it is the term of the Open Definition; it is to
> be understood in the largest possible sense.
> - "adapted" has been added to the original list of actions in order to
> reflect the importance of being able to 'remix' works of art for new
> audiences, a process, we feel, both good for the original artist and for the
> adaptor.
> - From the original version, we would also add that "the use of licenses
> which limit commercial re-use or limit the production of derivative works by
> excluding use for particular purposes or by specific persons or
> organizations is STRONGLY discouraged." This point is particularly relevant
> with regard to enclosure of the public domain, as practised by Google Books.
> 4) "Explicit dedication of annotations, editorial matter, etc. embedded in
> the published work to the public domain is strongly recommended and ensures
> compliance with the Open Content Definition."
> - One additional point (inspired by the original principles), that this is
> all the more important with those works that have been publicly funded.
> 5) "Explicit declaration of sources is strongly recommended, regardless of
> their copyright status, in order to foster a culture of both 'attibute' and
> 'share-alike'."
> - A greater uptake of SA-BY publication in the humanities will increase the
> incentive for others to publish in an open way, thus strengthening the
> position of those who have already done so.
> Thanks for reading!
> James
> P.S. This will be posted on http://wiki.openliterature.net
> --
> James Harriman-Smith
> Open Literature Working Group Coordinator
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org/members/jameshs
> Skype: james.harriman.smith
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-literature mailing list
> open-literature at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-literature
>
>



-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg