Comments on: “OPEN” really? … I mean Really? http://silona.org/open-really-i-mean-really/2009/11/02/ silona's central identity Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:06:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Silona http://silona.org/open-really-i-mean-really/2009/11/02/comment-page-1/#comment-78 Silona Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:25:40 +0000 http://silona.org/open-really-i-mean-really/2009/11/02/#comment-78 I wasn't trying to say that citability is the same as "open" nor am I interested in yolking the terms together. I was using citability as a good example of how things should be done. It is why I created a new term that wasn't in the dictionary. Instead I was saying we need to be careful about how we formulate our terms as terms like "open" because can be used improperly as Adobe and Facebook are doing. Though I do agree with you that the way to save "open" is to make sure it is bonded to another term. Like OpenBanking can mean something specific as OpenSource does (though often disputed.) And I need to get on it in regards to defining that. Though I do have doubts about OpenBanking as a term because of how undefined the word "open" is... Adobe is claiming (in Adverts that are DC specific so I'm not surprised you haven't seen them) that they do "Open Govt" and that is what I am referring too. http://blogs.adobe.com/adobeingovernment/2009/04/open_government_in_action.html It is not that they are wrong. It is just not how a group of us in the Govt 2.0 word have been using the term. I wasn’t trying to say that citability is the same as “open” nor am I interested in yolking the terms together. I was using citability as a good example of how things should be done. It is why I created a new term that wasn’t in the dictionary.

Instead I was saying we need to be careful about how we formulate our terms as terms like “open” because can be used improperly as Adobe and Facebook are doing.

Though I do agree with you that the way to save “open” is to make sure it is bonded to another term. Like OpenBanking can mean something specific as OpenSource does (though often disputed.) And I need to get on it in regards to defining that. Though I do have doubts about OpenBanking as a term because of how undefined the word “open” is…

Adobe is claiming (in Adverts that are DC specific so I’m not surprised you haven’t seen them) that they do “Open Govt” and that is what I am referring too. http://blogs.adobe.com/adobeingovernment/2009/04/open_government_in_action.html

It is not that they are wrong. It is just not how a group of us in the Govt 2.0 word have been using the term.

]]> By: jrep http://silona.org/open-really-i-mean-really/2009/11/02/comment-page-1/#comment-77 jrep Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:15:25 +0000 http://silona.org/open-really-i-mean-really/2009/11/02/#comment-77 Are you getting a little ahead of yourself? "Open" is an adjective; it has meaning only when conjoined with some noun. To take the Adobe example, I've seen them recently say "open source" about some of their code, and so far a I can tell, the "source" in question really is "open." I haven't seen them claim that PDF itself is "open," did I miss that? And I certainly haven't seen them claim that "everyone who ever uses PDF anywhere is open with their data." On the other hand, I've also seen them, like many, using the phrase "open API," lately, and I have rather more reservations about that. I think most people who use the phrase mean "you can connect to my web API," and maybe even "I've documented it for you." They don't tend to mean "you can help define the API" (some do, but not all, and I don't think Adobe does, since we're using that example). As an open sourcerer, I'd rather the "open" adjective be held to something in the "you can contribute" neighborhood, but I did also live through the 80's era of "open standards," which were at best only slightly communitarian, and mostly just meant "not IP-encumbered." Now "citability" is somewhere in the same corner of the cosmos as "open," but I think it would be a shame to yoke the two. Citability is actually a much stronger word, with a reasonably fair chance of making sense, all by itself, right out of the gate, without conjoined nouns or lengthy explanations. It's pretty clear that PDF is not presently "citable" (for example, because it's not internally addressable). That's worth some discussion, but trying to retrofit those notions to the "open" moniker seems counterproductive, but if we do it, it would still need that noun ... "open reference points," or something like that. Are you getting a little ahead of yourself? “Open” is an adjective; it has meaning only when conjoined with some noun. To take the Adobe example, I’ve seen them recently say “open source” about some of their code, and so far a I can tell, the “source” in question really is “open.” I haven’t seen them claim that PDF itself is “open,” did I miss that? And I certainly haven’t seen them claim that “everyone who ever uses PDF anywhere is open with their data.”

On the other hand, I’ve also seen them, like many, using the phrase “open API,” lately, and I have rather more reservations about that. I think most people who use the phrase mean “you can connect to my web API,” and maybe even “I’ve documented it for you.” They don’t tend to mean “you can help define the API” (some do, but not all, and I don’t think Adobe does, since we’re using that example). As an open sourcerer, I’d rather the “open” adjective be held to something in the “you can contribute” neighborhood, but I did also live through the 80′s era of “open standards,” which were at best only slightly communitarian, and mostly just meant “not IP-encumbered.”

Now “citability” is somewhere in the same corner of the cosmos as “open,” but I think it would be a shame to yoke the two. Citability is actually a much stronger word, with a reasonably fair chance of making sense, all by itself, right out of the gate, without conjoined nouns or lengthy explanations. It’s pretty clear that PDF is not presently “citable” (for example, because it’s not internally addressable). That’s worth some discussion, but trying to retrofit those notions to the “open” moniker seems counterproductive, but if we do it, it would still need that noun … “open reference points,” or something like that.

]]>