[od-discuss] O[K]D?

Mike Linksvayer ml at gondwanaland.com
Thu Jun 13 23:05:32 UTC 2013


Mails from threads earlier this year about the name of the Open
[Knowledge] Definition. I think the summary is that
* "Open Definition" is how OKF people talk
* "Open Definition" is shorter
* "Open Knowledge Definition" doesn't claim to define openness generally

As an outsider (to OKF) that context is pretty important to me so as
to not sound ridiculous. I wonder if "Open Definition for Knowledge"
might work for all ("for Knowledge" dropping amongst familiars)?

This could also make the definition URL go from the current
http://opendefinition.org/okd to a nice http://opendefinition.org/knowledge
rather than a redundant http://opendefinition.org/od

http://freedomdefined.org has always done something a bit like this; you
won't find the "Freedom Definition" on that site, rather the "Definition
of Free Cultural Works".

Anyway, hopefully this can be definitively resolved through consensus,
edict from Rufus, appearance of graven markings on the surface of Mars,
or something else on or before tomorrow's telecon and proceed accordingly.


Before the old od-discuss mails, a data point from the published Open Source
Initiative board minutes on how the O[K]D filters through the mind of
whoever was
taking notes at a meeting of those responsible for another open definition --
http://opensource.org/minutes20130306
> To discuss: endorsing Open Data Definition from Open Knowledge
>
> Mr. Villa proposed that OSI endorse the Open Data Definition when Open
> Knowledge publishes version 1.2. We can also help them publicize it,
> for example by writing a blog post. Several board members agreed with
> endorsing the Open Data Definition. Ms. Bryant asked whether endorsing
> the Open Data Definition would set a precedent and lead to requests for
> endorsement from other organizations and efforts, such as Open Science
> and Open Hardware. Mr. Phipps also had some concerns. Since there was
> not a lot of time to discuss, Mr. Villa proposed to revisit this topic
> another time.

Antti Poikola http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000386.html
> Open Definition is in my opinion empty... for me it raises question - Is
> the definition is open? not really defined or something?
>
> Further more, the idea of translating "Open Definition" with that title
> into Finnish "Avoin määritelmä" would be absolutely no-go, so if we
> decide to stick with OD instead of OKD there has to be some sort of
> translation guidelines.
>
> Open Definition works well as domain name and some sort of umbrella term
> where you could find the actual definitions like the OKD.


Andrew Katz http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000387.html
> The current definition is applicable to open knowledge, but it's not an
> appropriate definition for openness generally: that's why I prefer the
> term' Open Knowledge Definition'.
>
> The Open Knowledge Definition is  applicable to things like open data,
> open education resources, open content, but it's not applicable to
> things like open politics and open education (open standards have
> elements of both). The form of openness here has other connotations -
> access to the decision making process, access to influencers and so on. A
> truly embracing definition of 'openness' would include these aspects of
> openness as well as the open knowledge definition.


Laura James http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-February/000322.html
> +1 on "Open Definition"  -  in all the conversations when I've heard the
> definition cited, it's been "Open Definition", and IMHO that's the brand
> that's known in the wider community, and is what we should stick with.


Herb Lainchbury
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-February/000319.html
> From my perspective, as a relative newcomer, I like the label "Open
> Definition".  It's clean and simple.
>
> Putting the word "Knowledge" in the middle of the definition makes me
> think "I wonder what they mean by knowledge?".
>
> For some reason, I think the word "Knowledge" in the parent organization
> OKF is fine... makes total sense, but I do prefer just OD for the
> definition.


Rufus Pollock http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-February/000318.html
> I'm somewhat torn. I think the issue with pure OKD is that the
> knowledge has a somewhat odd ring and the main applications are around
> data and content.
>
> OD fits with this genericity (that the "knowledge" was ultimately
> trying to capture ...) and fits with the URL and is just shorter.


Mike Linksvayer
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-February/000317.html
(raised issue)



More information about the od-discuss mailing list