headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Jul 11:16

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 |
headers
Masayuki Hatta | 1 Jul 13:33

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
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 |
headers
Evan Prodromou | 1 Jul 18:55

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 |
headers
David Joyner | 1 Jul 23:54

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 |
headers
Evan Prodromou | 2 Jul 14:21

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

David Joyner wrote:
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 ... ".
I don't like "Web Service" since some compatible services might not be exposed through HTTP.

-Evan

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rob Myers | 2 Jul 15:08

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan-zXN58WaLIl/N9bQgM1pvpg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

David Joyner wrote:
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 ... ".
I don't like "Web Service" since some compatible services might not be exposed through HTTP.

-Evan

Reduce SaaS to "Software Service" and we get OSSD.

- Rob. 

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 8 Jul 20:59

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

It's proving hard to consensus here on the name! So far I think we've 
had (with rough votes):

Open Service Definition           +2 -1
Open Software (as a) Service Defn +2
Open Network Service Definition   +2
Open Web Service Definition       +1 -1

Given the acronymic problems with the OSD overlapping with the Open 
Source Definition and the current votes it seems the two front-runners are:

Open Software Service Definition (OSSD)
Open Network Service Definition (ONSD)

My slight inclination is towards the second of these. What do other 
people think. It would be nice to resolve this so if you've got a 
preference between these two do speak up.

~rufus

On 02/07/08 14:08, Rob Myers wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@...> wrote:
> 
>>  David Joyner wrote:
>>
>>  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 ... ".
>>
>>
>>  I don't like "Web Service" since some compatible services might not be
>> exposed through HTTP.
>>
>> -Evan
>>
> 
> Reduce SaaS to "Software Service" and we get OSSD.
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss@...
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 8 Jul 21:15

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

Rufus Pollock dixit:

>Open Network Service Definition (ONSD)

+1, even if I'd think along the lines of Open Data+Code Service Definition,
or something similar (this does not look good to even me, but you get the
idea).

I don't know if services always involve networks, but this is close enough.

//mirabilos
--

-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 8 Jul 21:59

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Rufus Pollock dixit:
> 
>> Open Network Service Definition (ONSD)
> 
> +1
 > [...]

I agree!

J.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prodromos Tsiavos | 9 Jul 09:12

Re: Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

>> Rufus Pollock dixit:
>> 
>>> Open Network Service Definition (ONSD)
>> 
>> +1

I agree
pRo

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Jul 20:52

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 |

Gmane