headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Jul 10:55
Gravatar

Re: Second CKAN Package Party?

On 17/06/08 22:26, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Today the number of packages on CKAN passed the 200 mark:
> 
>    http://blog.okfn.org/2008/06/17/over-200-packages-on-ckan/

This is great news. We now have 212!

> It would be great to have another package party sometime in the
> not-too-distant future to try and keep the ball rolling. I've created a
> page for this here:
> 
>    http://okfn.org/wiki/CkanPackageParty/2

A big +1 on this. I've already signed up. We should probably use doodle 
(or similar) to start picking some dates.

> What do people think about dates? Does later in June or July suit? If
> there was enough interest, I thought it could be fun for people near each
> other to meet somewhere with wifi and drinks, and to co-ordinate with
> other interested parties online!

Do you have plans for another London meetup? Perhaps we could sync it 
with that? (I'm going to be down in London around the 10th/11th of 
July). If a physical meetup does not work out we can always do a virtual 
package-party based around irc as we did last time.

> I've also created a page on the wiki for notes about CKAN that don't yet
> seem to have a home, including a list of places to look for packages to
> add and a list of suggestions for new features:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Jul 11:19
Gravatar

Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

We first started discussing 'Free/Open Services' 2 years ago thanks to a 
post of Kragen Sitaker's. A year ago in July, prompted by debates at 
GUADEC and the follow-up by Luis Villa among others, there was a return 
to the issue and a formal draft was put up at:

   <http://www.opendefinition.org/osd/>

Following further discussion as part of an informal group coordinated by 
the FSF (soon to be further publicized I believe) I believe it is time 
for the Open Service Definition (likely rechristened as the Free/Open 
Service Definition -- though comments below) to be launched as being 1.0.

To this end it would be great if people would take a quick look at the 
current F/OSD page and send back any comments (be that on typos or more 
substantial content):

   <http://www.opendefinition.org/osd/>

I'd also welcome comments on 2 specific issues:

1. Naming: should it be Free/Open Service Definition or just plain Open 
Service Definition?

2. URL: should we go for the short 'osd' or the longer 
'open_service_definition' (or even just 'open_service' or 
'free_open_service').

Regards,

Rufus
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Rob Myers | 1 Jul 12:50
Gravatar

New Music Metadata Project

http://imdbp.org/wiki/Main_Page

"The IMDBP is the new offspring of the established IMSLP/Petrucci Music Library, and is still very much a work in progress. Currently it hosts all the work information used by IMSLP.

[...]

There are three goals of the IMDBP.
  • IMDBP strives to categorize every single piece of music ever written in a format that is
  1. Flexible, extensible
  2. Thorough, uncompromising detail
  3. Efficient and intuitive to use for the average user, including the elimination of duplicate information entry and other potential inconsistencies
  • IMDBP also strives to be a place to discuss music, and software that facilitates this in the most user friendly manner is in planning.
  • IMDBP will also supply the information to other websites, such as the IMSLP, that requests it. This will ensure that there is no duplication of information, and avenues of potential inconsistencies, across such websites.

If you have any suggestions, or would like to help in building this website, please e-mail feldmahler {at} imslp.org"

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Masayuki Hatta | 1 Jul 13:33
Favicon

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

Hi,

>>>>> In <4869F692.5000309@...> 
>>>>>	Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:

>    <http://www.opendefinition.org/osd/>

> I'd also welcome comments on 2 specific issues:

> 1. Naming: should it be Free/Open Service Definition or just plain
> Open Service Definition?

> 2. URL: should we go for the short 'osd' or the longer
> 'open_service_definition' (or even just 'open_service' or
> 'free_open_service').

I think there have been already too many "OSD" acronyms -- especially,
for the Open *Source* Definition.  Isn't it a good idea to change the
name/URL before it become too popular, to avoid confusion in the
future?

Unfortunately, I don't come up with any good candidates -- possibly,
OSSD(means the Open SaaS Definition)?  I know it sounds rather bad
and/or stupid ;-)

Best regards,
MH

--
Masayuki Hatta
Graduate School of Economics, The University of Tokyo

http://www.mhatta.org/

mhatta@... / mhatta@...
mhatta@... / mhatta@... / mhatta@...
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Luis Villa | 1 Jul 16:40

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't come up with any good candidates -- possibly,
> OSSD(means the Open SaaS Definition)?  I know it sounds rather bad
> and/or stupid ;-)

Maybe SaaOS? (Software as an Open Service?) Not sure where the D goes there.

Do we have anyone actually using the definition yet? I'm always
reluctant to call things 1.0 until they've had significant amounts of
rubber-meeting-road.

Luis
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Evan Prodromou | 1 Jul 18:55
Gravatar

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

Luis Villa wrote:
> Do we have anyone actually using the definition yet? I'm always
> reluctant to call things 1.0 until they've had significant amounts of
> rubber-meeting-road.
>   
Using it for what?

Also, I'd throw in my vote for "Open Network Service Definition" (ONSD), 
which is close to OSDN but not confusingly so. However, it does use two 
appositive nouns, which can be a little hairy (is it a definition for 
open network services, or a service definition for open networks?).

-Evan
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Jul 20:52
Gravatar

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

On 01/07/08 15:40, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@...> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I don't come up with any good candidates -- possibly,
>> OSSD(means the Open SaaS Definition)?  I know it sounds rather bad
>> and/or stupid ;-)
> 
> Maybe SaaOS? (Software as an Open Service?) Not sure where the D goes there.

Hmm, it is not proving easy to get consensus here :)

> Do we have anyone actually using the definition yet? I'm always

If you mean is there anyone out there currently stating "We're compliant 
with the Open Service Definition" then I would guess no but that's 
because ...

> reluctant to call things 1.0 until they've had significant amounts of
> rubber-meeting-road.

I don't think anyone will start using something like this until it 
appears fairly stable -- hence strict adherence to this principle will 
lead to a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Nevertheless, I take your 
point about stuff being used though I would note that the definition has 
seen a good amount of discussion. My impression from those discussions 
is that

a) the core is pretty stable and includes the key features that people 
want to see

b) while there might be some future clarifications these are likely to 
be minor and, as yet, there is no consensus as to what these are (e.g. 
around questions of dependency on external closed libraries, or around 
'identity' -- something I know you've frequently commented on.

Furthermore, I do think there are a fair few services already out there 
/ about to be launched (I know Evan has several items in this category) 
for which the definition is highly relevant and it would be nice to have 
it out there in a form that people were ready to start linking to.

As such I think it not unreasonable to move this to 1.0 to reflect its 
overall maturity and to encourage people to start using -- after all it 
can always be updated to 1.1 (or even 2.0!) in light of future feedback.

Of course if you, or anyone else, have suggestions for mods, big or 
small, right now that they think are needed they would be most welcome!

~rufus
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Iain Emsley | 1 Jul 21:40

Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

Dear all,

Comments on Rufus's specifics below but I have a question. Should there 
be a definition about the methodologies of any data / services offered?

Just thinking of any service that might pull in data from a social 
network (the "friends" may not know about their data being pulled in to 
another service and may not agree - an ongoing argument I believe) or 
using social science or, for instance, medical or other scientific data, 
amongst other forms. If a SaaS is offering a service based on data, it 
must be in the user's interests in knowing the source of any data. If 
you cannot verify the data or the source, any results based thereon must 
be suspect because an end user cannot follow the bread crumbs. Similarly 
if data is manipulated in any fashion, the methodolog(y/ies) must be 
announced to the end user and, again, the source be present to trace the 
original data to prove or re-run any tests or to test the 
methodolog(y/ies).
> 1. Naming: should it be Free/Open Service Definition or just plain Open Service Definition?
>   
I prefer Open  Service Definition: it would at least cover any service 
which may buy in data and free it up. I wonder whether the semantics of 
free mightconfuse any users of either variety (i.e., the license or the 
service).
> 2. URL: should we go for the short 'osd' or the longer 
> 'open_service_definition' (or even just 'open_service' or 
> 'free_open_service').
> Open Service Defintion might play more friendly with search engines and the fewer acronyms the better
IMHO. 
>
>   
Iain

Iain Emsley
Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
David Joyner | 1 Jul 23:54
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@...> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
>> Do we have anyone actually using the definition yet? I'm always
>> reluctant to call things 1.0 until they've had significant amounts of
>> rubber-meeting-road.
>>
> Using it for what?
>
> Also, I'd throw in my vote for "Open Network Service Definition" (ONSD),
> which is close to OSDN but not confusingly so. However, it does use two
> appositive nouns, which can be a little hairy (is it a definition for
> open network services, or a service definition for open networks?).

I agree. Open Service is not very specific. I vote for "Open Network
Service ... " or
"Open Web Service ... ".

>
> -Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss@...
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
graham simpson | 2 Jul 11:18

(no subject)

stop sendin me junk pleased thanks
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane