[pdb-discuss] Some things to think about at tonight's meeting

[Michael Holloway]

Hi All

I'm just struggling as a first-time with ChatZilla ... with you asap!

On 1/15/07, Timothy Cowlishaw <timcowlishaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rufus et al,
>
>
> I'm really sorry, but due to my extreme disorganisation, I've just
> remembered that I've got to be somewhere in about half an hour, and
> will therefore be unable to make the IRC meeting. Am still very keen
> to be involved - could someone post a transcript of the meeting back
> to the pdb-discuss list, and I'll read over it at a later date?
>
>
> Apologies, and many thanks,
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 15 Jan 2007, at 17:28, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>
> > Here are some suggestions for things to think about in relation to
> > tonight's meeting.
> >
> > 1. What we plan to build. In particular do we want to build our own
> > db of work metadata or contribute to an existing one? Originally I
> > had thought we would need to construct our own as nothing
> > appropriate (structured + open licensed) already existed. However I
> > spent quite a bit of this afternoon looking again at musicbrainz:
> >
> >   http://musicbrainz.org/
> >
> > When I last looked at this in detail (as it must have been a year
> > ago) they appeared to be using CC by-nc-sa which rendered their
> > data non-open. However since then they seem to have changed to
> > making all the core data public domain and only keeping the CC by-
> > nc-sa for a restricted set of add-on data. Thus, is seems to me, it
> > would make a lot of sense for us to avoid reinventing the wheel by
> > creating our own metadata database and instead focus on:
> >
> >   1. Contributing data on *old* works to musicbrainz (old data is
> > what we are interested from a public domain point of view)
> >   2. Developing software and algorithms to determine which works/
> > performances are in the public domain
> >
> > There are some drawbacks to using musicbrainz of course. For
> > example, (AFAICT) they don't always draw a clean distinction
> > between 'authors' and 'performers' (they do have a composer
> > category in their Advanced Relationships section though). However
> > stuff like this seems very minor compared to the benefits.
> >
> > ~~ If we go down this route then things we can work on: ~~
> >
> > 2. Contributing data. This breaks down into several parts:
> >
> >   1. Entering data by hand (e.g. by looking up dates in wikipedia)
> >   2. Getting hold of full datasets either 'by hand' (i.e. finding
> > them) or robotically (e.g. from library of congress)
> >   3. Extracting the data we want from the datasets we acquire (for
> > example from the composer list we were given or from the BBC data)
> >   4. Once we have structured data uploading up to whatever storage
> > system we are using (musicbrainz or our own)
> >
> > 3. Developing a front-end to show current list of public domain
> > works, questionable works (i.e. status unclear etc etc).
> >
> > 4. Developing a project website (based at http://
> > www.publicdomainworks.net/ or whatever other url we choose). I
> > suggest we use wordpress for this and move the current demo wiki-
> > based site to alpha.publicdomainworks.net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rufus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pdb-discuss mailing list
> > pdb-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pdb-discuss mailing list
> pdb-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-discuss
>



-- 
Michael H Holloway
+44 (0) 7974 566 823

http://www.openbusiness.cc/
http://www.openrightsgroup.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20070115/850e3ab3/attachment.html>