headers
Rufus Pollock | 7 Jan 18:31
Gravatar

[Fwd: Re-use request service]

John Sheridan of OPSI has kindly emailed us about thhe 'BarCamp' they're 
organizing on the Power of Information Review recommendation 8:

"To improve government's responsiveness to demand for public sector 
information, by July 2008 OPSI should create a web-based channel to 
gather and assess requests for publication of public sector information."

The event is scheduled for this Saturday in London (full details below).

~rufus

PS: to all those lurking list members out there: if you come across some 
interesting piece of open knowledge related news (whether related to an 
event, project etc) please do feel free to pass it on to the list ...

-------- Original Message --------...)
Subject: 	Re-use request service
Date: 	Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:48:15 -0000

Dear OKFN (Rufus, Jo et al)

As an organisation with an interest in re-use of Public Sector
Information I wanted to bring this event to your attention:
http://barcamp.org/BarCampPOIR8 on *12th January 2008*, at the Spey &
Ness Rooms, City Inn, 30 John Islip Street, Westminster, London.

Since beginning to accept requests for re-using PSI through the
discussion forum on the OPSI website, we’ve been given some very helpful
feedback by users and learnt quite a few lessons about how the eventual
service will need to work. The forums have served a useful purpose these
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
uttini [remote - email] | 8 Jan 13:26
Picon

psi champion recognised

 
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/psi_champion_recognised
 

Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! 
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 9 Jan 11:18
Gravatar

Re: New Science Commons protocol and the Open Data Commons legal tools

Dear Jordan,

Sorry to not have responded before Christmas but I was (and have been) 
rather out it with an illness. Anyway, well done for all your work on 
the PDDL (and to John Wilbanks and CC for all their work). The next step 
should be to update the license list on the Open Definition site with 
this new info:

http://opendefinition.org/licenses/

As the main author of it (as well as the other Open Data Commons 
licenses already listed there) you're probably best placed to do this 
task :) (I note that the page is editable by anyone).

Regards,

Rufus

Jordan Hatcher's lists wrote:
> FYI for those that haven't checked the CC feeds....
> 
> A new protocol for open data has been announced by Science Commons,  
> with which the new CC Zero licence will comply.
> 
> The Creative Commons announcement is here:
> <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7917>
> 
> The new implementation of the protocol is CCZero
> <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Cczero>
> 
> Science Commons Protocol
> <http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data- 
> protocol/>
> 
> The announcement on the Science Commons blog
> <http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/12/16/announcing- 
> protocol-for-oa-data/>
> 
> The Open Data Commons project, with the support of Talis, has also  
> developed a legal tool that complies with the protocol that is  
> available for comment. The goal of the Open Data Commons legal tool  
> is to be fully compatible with CC Zero.
> 
> We've been talking to Rufus and the rest of the Open Knowledge  
> Foundation and are pleased to announce that we will be partnering on  
> the hosting and maintaining of the Open Data Commons project.
> 
> The new home for the project is:
> <http://opendatacommons.org>
> 
> There are two documents on which we would very much appreciate your  
> comments:
> 
> Public Domain Dedication & Licence (PDDL)
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and- 
> licence/>
> 
> Community Norms
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-community-norms/>
> 
> Talis has put out a press release for the new legal tools here:
> <http://www.talis.com/platform/news_and_events/index.shtml#no054>
> 
> We've created a FAQ for some of the initial questions here:
>   <http://www.opendatacommons.org/open-data-commons-faq/>.
> 
> A FAQ addressing some of the in-depth legal issues of the PDDL will  
> be forthcoming.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ~Jordan
> 
> 
> J S Hatcher
> opencontentlawyer.com
> twitchgamer.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss@...
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nate Olson | 9 Jan 13:49

DataPortability Workgroup

Greetings, all,

Consider this an answer to Rufus' call on Monday for lurkers (like me) to de-lurkify...

Perhaps some of you have heard of the DataPortability Workgroup, a loose collection of individuals and orgs whose mission is "to put all [relevant] existing technologies and initiatives in context to create a reference design for end-to-end Data Portability." The main site is at 


I confess that I hadn't heard of the DPW at all until yesterday, when reps from Google (Brad Fitzpatrick) and Facebook (Benjamin Ling) joined up. A lot of buzz has followed. See, eg, 


And a dissenting view...


Initiatives like the DPW crop up quite often, of course, and it remains to be seen whether this one will get real traction and lead to tangible results. At the least, though, it does give some indication of what the emerging 'norms' are in this space.

All best,
Nate
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 10 Jan 22:05

Future of Bibliographic Control

Just a quick note to say that 'On the Record: Report of The Library of 
Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control' has just 
been published:

   http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/

Our response to the original draft is here:

http://blog.okfn.org/2007/12/19/response-to-the-future-of-bibliographic-control-draft-from-the-library-of-congress/

Regards,

Jonathan
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 11 Jan 15:35
Gravatar

Open Economics and Data Packaging: some thoughts and questions

One part of our Open Economics project (http://www.openeconomics.net/) 
involves maintaining a data store:

   http://www.openeconomics.net/store/

Corresponding data is stored in subversion:

   http://knowledgeforge.net/econ/svn/trunk/data/

Actually having to store some data (in a simple way) has been a great 
exercise in terms of thinking about how one does this kind of thing. In 
keeping with the KISS approach basic structure of the data sets (or 
'bundles' as I have termed them) is:

   * metadata.txt: follows ini style conventions
   * data itself stored either:
     * plain csv: data.csv
     * and/or script file of some kind: data.py (which helps generate 
data.csv in some way via downloading, parsing etc etc).

To illustrate one dataset we've recently been working to include is that 
from Millenium Development Goals Project

   <http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/>

The corresponding (still not complete) Open Economics dataset is at:

   <http://knowledgeforge.net/econ/svn/trunk/data/mdg/>

and can be browsed from the store browser at (note data and plot links 
won't work because they would 'barf' if trying to display a 9mb csv):

<http://www.openeconomics.net/store/d0b2917e-bfb8-40be-8819-5867f155c1a3>

Below I detail some thoughts and questions from dealing with this 
particular item. I know this is a bit thinking out loud but I'd 
appreciate any comments/ideas -- after all people have been thinking 
about data storage for as long as they have using computers ...

Regards,

Rufus

Issues raised by the MDG data
=============================

1. MDG Data has at least 3 basic dimensions:

   * Country
   * Series
   * Time

Can deal with this by taking one dimension as primary (e.g. series) 
though this has the cost that it is harder to divide up in other ways 
(e.g. show me these 3 series for this specific country).

2. Values are slightly complex in that they have a type (related to how 
reliable the estimates are how they were obtained) and (potentially) an 
associated footnote.

    * since fn and type are not directly relevant most of the time 
perhaps we can just ignore (made easier once we have normalized).

3. Number of countries (~241) make displaying a bit of an issue.

   * in web interface this should be dealt with simply by restricting 
number of rows we display to a sample (say 50).

3. Also lots of blank values for many series for many countries.

   * again not so much of a problem once we normalize

### How to Design (Sub-)Data Bundles ...

One way to deal with the massive amount of data in the single csv file 
would be to create 'sub-bundles' corresponding to particular slices 
through the data. E.g. could create bundles for each country or each 
time series (or even each country by each time series).

But is this a good idea? Perhaps one should just have some script that 
can generate such things 'on-demand' though one would still need to 
register somewhere what particular 'bundles' could be built on demand ...

Another alternative would be to load said data into a db (after all that 
is where it came from and that is the easiest way to deal with getting 
multiple views on same dataset). Question then is does one do this in a 
way that preserves the ability for data to be provided in a simple 
(easily usable) form to other users (and how do we load the data? On 
request or permanently into some db or ...).

Related to this is what one would want to if one wanted to provide more 
functionality than pure dataset browsing of visualization plugin which 
would manipulate a given dataset for the web user -- though still not 
sure how manipulating a 9mb csv file.

### What Was the Aim?

But all of this adds significant complexity. What is the aim of 
openeconomics.net. At present think its core aim is to provide a simple 
repository for datasets. In this regard the web interface is there 
simply to provide:

   * A dataset browser.
   * Persistent urls.
   * [?] Simple way to upload and download data.

Providing complex data analysis tools etc is not central to this but is 
definitely a possibly extension.

### Left-over questions

   * How can we integrate with OpeNDAP (and pydap). Should seem an 
obvious option.
   * PlotKit javascript graphing library no longer seems actively 
developed. what are the other good js graphing libraries ...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
D.B. Free | 13 Jan 13:11
Picon

OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

The detailed definition ( http://opendefinition.org/1.0/ ) is flawed
because it has some limits on the free use of the knowledge in
question.

Despite its laudable goal of providing a basic standard, its terms
still prohibit some usage, and thereby fundamentally contradict with
the goals of free and open knowledge.

For example, 3. Reuse
"The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and
must allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original
work."
This is clearly a restriction of knowledge and information, since by
definition any terms are a limitation.

Again, 5. Attribution
"The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use
the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work."
Here there is another condition imposed on the use of the knowledge.

There are numerous examples, but the the root problem is that all
prohibitions contradict the basic definition  "A piece of knowledge is
open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."

Any limits on the use, reuse, changes, etc. is a restriction on the
freedom to use that knowledge, and so is contrary to the idea of open
knowledge.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Rob Myers | 13 Jan 15:50
Gravatar

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

D.B. Free wrote:

> This is clearly a restriction of knowledge and information, since by
> definition any terms are a limitation.

What if the term was "you may do anything with this work"? Would that 
"by definition" be a limitation?

It would not. Your premise is therefore false.

What if the term was "you may restrict use of this knowledge by whoever 
you wish"? Would that "by definition" be a limitation?

It would not be a limitation by your definition, but it will lead to far 
more restriction and limitation of people's ability to actually use the 
knowledge or imformation than a "restriction" that would prevent this.

Your premise is therefore self-defeating in practice.

> There are numerous examples, but the the root problem is that all
> prohibitions contradict the basic definition  "A piece of knowledge is
> open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."

Attribution does not prevent the use re-use or distribution of knowledge 
and is allowed by the vast majority of extant "Free Software", "Free 
Culture" and "Free Data" licences.

I am aware of the Wikipedia and OSM attribution problems. These are a 
failures of planning by otherwise excellent projects, not a deep problem 
with attribution.

> Any limits on the use, reuse, changes, etc. is a restriction on the
> freedom to use that knowledge, and so is contrary to the idea of open
> knowledge.

There is a difference between "open" and "restrictable" in much the same 
way that there is a difference between "free" and "enslaveable".

The OKD's failure to ensure that knowledge is restrictable is not a 
flaw. Its acknowledgement of licences that make knowledge restrictable 
is a flaw from my point of view, but I think it's a reasonable compromise.

- Rob.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 14 Jan 12:04
Gravatar

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

Dear Rob,

Thanks for responding so admirably to D.B. Free's email. I think the key 
point here is that the Definition does allow certain very specific 
'restrictions' on one's 'freedom' to use, reuse and redistribute such 
information most specifically in terms of allowing attribution and 
sharealike provisions. Anyway I just want to ask you for further 
clarification on a couple of minor points you brought up:

Rob Myers wrote:
> D.B. Free wrote:

[snip]

> Attribution does not prevent the use re-use or distribution of knowledge 
> and is allowed by the vast majority of extant "Free Software", "Free 
> Culture" and "Free Data" licences.
> 
> I am aware of the Wikipedia and OSM attribution problems. These are a 
> failures of planning by otherwise excellent projects, not a deep problem 
> with attribution.

I must confess I am not as knowledgeable as yourself as to what these 
current problems are. Would you mind providing some further information? 
Is it that attribution is required to each individual contributor?

>> Any limits on the use, reuse, changes, etc. is a restriction on the
>> freedom to use that knowledge, and so is contrary to the idea of open
>> knowledge.
> 
> There is a difference between "open" and "restrictable" in much the same 
> way that there is a difference between "free" and "enslaveable".

Quite!

> The OKD's failure to ensure that knowledge is restrictable is not a 
> flaw. Its acknowledgement of licences that make knowledge restrictable 
> is a flaw from my point of view, but I think it's a reasonable compromise.

What "acknowledgment of licences" did you have in mind here? I'd be very 
interested to have your comments in this regard as well as any 
suggestions for how things could be 'fixed' if there is something that 
isn't right.

~rufus
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
rob | 14 Jan 12:34
Gravatar

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

Quoting Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...>:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> I am aware of the Wikipedia and OSM attribution problems. These are  
>>  a failures of planning by otherwise excellent projects, not a deep  
>>  problem with attribution.
>
> I must confess I am not as knowledgeable as yourself as to what these
> current problems are. Would you mind providing some further
> information? Is it that attribution is required to each individual
> contributor?

OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia are very successful projects with many  
contributors. Each of those contributors must be given attribution  
under the licences that OSM (BY-SA) and Wikipedia (FDL) use. Since a  
town map from OSM or a detailed article on a popular subject from  
Wikipedia may have dozens of contributors, attributing them all  
individually can become a burden.

OSM in particular are discussing how to better handle attribution.

BY-SA 2 introduced group attribution and the ability to separate  
attribution from the work (if this is done for *every* author: I can't  
put my name on the cover then relegate others to a web page somewhere)  
IIRC. Copyright assignment or agreeing to allow indirect attribution  
as a condition for contributing might also work.

>> The OKD's failure to ensure that knowledge is restrictable is not a  
>>  flaw. Its acknowledgement of licences that make knowledge   
>> restrictable is a flaw from my point of view, but I think it's a   
>> reasonable compromise.
>
> What "acknowledgment of licences" did you have in mind here? I'd be
> very interested to have your comments in this regard as well as any
> suggestions for how things could be 'fixed' if there is something that
> isn't right.

The "conformant licences" section lists the MIT and CC-BY licences as  
conformant. These licences allow work to be used by individuals who  
then close it off to others.

I personally believe that such licences are usually not as useful as  
copyleft licences but I recognize that they can have their practical  
uses and that some people are attached to them for ideological  
reasons. I think that the OKD is therefore right to recognise such  
licences, and should ignore both people like myself who do not like  
them, and others who believe they are the only acceptable option. ;-)

- Rob.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane