headers
Rufus Pollock | 10 Dec 13:11
Gravatar

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The Library of Congress has asked for comments on a draft produced by a 
> Working Group they initiated on the 'Future of Bibliographic Control'.
> 
> As some of you may have seen I recently blogged about this:
>  
> http://blog.okfn.org/2007/12/06/the-future-of-bibliographic-control-and-licensing-policies-for-bibliographic-data/
> 
> The deadline for public comments is 15th December. I think it would be 
> great if we could submit some brief notes on the potential benefits of 
> openly licensing bibliographic data!

We should definitely draft something. Would you be happy to put 
something together and then post it to the list (or on the wiki with a 
link for the list).

Looking through the PR from the LC in your mail (not included here) some 
  potential points to make would be:

* Best way to achieve sharing and deliver value for a publicly funded 
ORG such as LC is to make biblio metadata *openly* available. Why?
   * More bugfixing, possibilities for 'wiki-like' management of data 
etc => better quality data
   * Allows for possibility of distributed data provision and access 
(reducing load, reducing latency, risk of downtime etc etc)
   * Better access both in terms of multiple forms/formats and others 
designing a better interface (see comments in a recent blog post [1])
   * Possibilities for reuse and recombination with other data sources
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 11 Dec 21:42

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Hi all,

Below is a (rather long) draft response to the LoC draft report:

  http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl

Any comments would be much appreciated!

(Its also inline below.)

Regards,

Jonathan

= Open bibliographic data? - comments on draft report by the Working 
Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control at the Library of Congress =

14th December 2007

'''Rufus Pollock, The Open Knowledge Foundation''' [[BR]]
'''Jonathan Gray, The Open Knowledge Foundation''' [[BR]]
'''Peter Suber, The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources 
Coalition''' [[BR]]
'''Aaron Schwartz, The Open Library'''[[BR]]

== Introduction ==

This document is a response to the call for comments on a draft released 
by the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control on 30th 
November 2007 [1].
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 12 Dec 12:31
Gravatar

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Below is a (rather long) draft response to the LoC draft report:
> 
>   http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl
> 
> Any comments would be much appreciated!

Main comments:

* I generally agree with Aaron that you want something short and to the 
point as your main part.

* I'd therefore strongly suggest refactoring the intro to *be* the 
response with any other stuff as 'Appendices'.

* I think it would be good if we could merge this response with Aaron's 
to get something common and simple that everyone can sign onto (though 
this is not essential). I've had a first stab at doing this below (and 
I've also uploaded this to the wiki).

* This way one can just sent round the succinct response for signon and 
leave specifics for an appendices (perhaps just submitted by the OKF and 
whoever else is happy with them).

* Even in the appendix I'm not sure one really wants to include the line 
by line critique of their report -- is this the usual approach? I 
thought responses were generally more broadbrush than this though I 
might be wrong.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 13 Dec 11:09
Gravatar

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Just to update everyone: thanks to Aaron's efforts we've now got a final 
version of the response at:

   http://okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl

It's now nice and short so please do take a look and sign if you're 
happy to (and please circulate to anyone else who might be interested). 
It needs to be submitted tomorrow (Friday) so you'll want to do this 
sooner rather than later :)

~rufus

Rufus Pollock wrote:
> Jonathan Gray wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Below is a (rather long) draft response to the LoC draft report:
>>
>>   http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl
>>
>> Any comments would be much appreciated!
> 
[snip]
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Luis Villa | 13 Dec 14:13

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

On Dec 13, 2007 5:09 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:
> Just to update everyone: thanks to Aaron's efforts we've now got a final
> version of the response at:
>
>    http://okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl
>
> It's now nice and short so please do take a look and sign if you're
> happy to (and please circulate to anyone else who might be interested).
> It needs to be submitted tomorrow (Friday) so you'll want to do this
> sooner rather than later :)

Suggested edits (there are so many, and some so substantive, I didn't
want to make them in the wiki without running them by people first):

style edits:
* 'including people from' -> 'including representatives from'
* 'access and re-use without restriction.' -> 'unrestricted access and re-use'
* 'access, re-use and re-distribution without restriction.' ->
'unrestricted access, re-use and re-distribution'
* 'simpler feedback' -> 'unimpeded feedback'
* 'but will also' -> 'but it will also'
* 'as well as many other possibilities we cannot predict in advance.'
-> 'and many other benefits that can't be predicted in advance.'

content changing edits:
* add links for Open Access Journals/Open Educational resources/Open
Data; at least to the relevant Wikipedia articles if nothing else.
* 'incredible rise in community-led development and innovative uses.'
-> 'incredible increase in innovative development, contribution, and
use by communities, corporations, and governments'
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 13 Dec 20:58

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Hi Luis,

Thank you very much for your suggested edits!

However I wonder whether it could be too late to make any alterations 
given that not all signatories will be on okfn-discuss, and there's no 
easy way to confirm all changes with all signatories.

What do people think?

Regards,

Jonathan

Luis Villa wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 5:09 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...> wrote:
>   
>> Just to update everyone: thanks to Aaron's efforts we've now got a final
>> version of the response at:
>>
>>    http://okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl
>>
>> It's now nice and short so please do take a look and sign if you're
>> happy to (and please circulate to anyone else who might be interested).
>> It needs to be submitted tomorrow (Friday) so you'll want to do this
>> sooner rather than later :)
>>     
>
> Suggested edits (there are so many, and some so substantive, I didn't
> want to make them in the wiki without running them by people first):
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Luis Villa | 13 Dec 21:07

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

On Dec 13, 2007 2:58 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@...> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> Thank you very much for your suggested edits!
>
> However I wonder whether it could be too late to make any alterations
> given that not all signatories will be on okfn-discuss, and there's no
> easy way to confirm all changes with all signatories.

Yeah, that was the other reason I didn't make them myself. Might still
want to make the non-substantive changes, though, just to make things
read a little better. (And I can non-substantively re-edit that
monster second sentence if people want me to.)

Luis
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jordan Hatcher's lists | 17 Dec 09:39

Opendefinition.org site bug?

Just visited opendefinition.org and got this error message:

"SyntaxError: EOL while scanning single-quoted string (wikiconfig.py,  
line 24)
If you want to report a bug, please save this page and attach it to  
your bug report."

I have a screenshot of it if it helps.

Thanks!

~Jordan
____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 17 Dec 19:18

Re: Opendefinition.org site bug?

Hey Jordan,

Thanks very much for this!

Its now up again - I hope we didn't miss too many people!

Jonathan

Jordan Hatcher's lists wrote:
> Just visited opendefinition.org and got this error message:
>
> "SyntaxError: EOL while scanning single-quoted string (wikiconfig.py,  
> line 24)
> If you want to report a bug, please save this page and attach it to  
> your bug report."
>
> I have a screenshot of it if it helps.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ~Jordan
> ____
> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>
> jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
> OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
> IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net
>
> Open Data Commons
> http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 12 Dec 06:59

Re: Submitting comments to the Library of Congress?

Hi,

After meeting with Aaron Swartz of The Open Library, we thought having a 
shorter version might be good to get more signatories before Friday.

Aaron's prepared something here:

   http://www.okfn.org/wiki/OpenBibliographicData

Again - comments appreciated.

Do people think it should be more/less strong?

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Below is a (rather long) draft response to the LoC draft report:
> 
>   http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl
> 
> Any comments would be much appreciated!
> 
> (Its also inline below.)
> 
> Regards,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane