This sounds fine with me, Peter, since we want to underscore Ontolog's
openness but yet allow members to gain in many ways. Maybe we should
rebroadcast the IP policy statement more generally? Are we still happy
with the current wording? (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:31 PM
To: Bob Smith; 'Rex Brooks'; conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Obrst,Leo J.
Cc: '[ontolog-admin]'
Subject: Re: Writing/Editing the Summary Report of the Aug. 25, Health
Informatics Panel Discussion (03)
Thanks, Bob. (04)
On re-read ... I noticed minor errata which I am updating (and
re-posting) as below: (05)
//
> [RexB] I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am
> copying, could I shop this to media, for no remuneration? (06)
[ppy] my take: as far as Ontolog is concerned, its IPR policy
(ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32)
should rule. (07)
That said, I personally do want to see that community members do
end up 'gaining' (both intellectually, opportunistically,
commercially, financially, ...) from their engagement with this
CoP -- I trust that (to provide continuous value to its
constituency) being the only way the CoP can be sustainable. (08)
That said, may I suggest that we have (a) an open, community
sanctioned summary report of the 8/25 session that will be
published by Ontolog, goes into its archives, gets used as the
community submission to the Fed HIT Conference, ...etc. But then,
since authors actually hold the copyrights (not Ontolog ...
Ontolog just stipulates that they should carry an open content
license), you guys could (b) re-factor that and shop another, or
multiple articles elsewhere (gratis, or for remuneration, as you
see fit) as long as proper attributions are made (to Ontolog and
the other contributors, namely Ontolog, the panelists, and those
participating in the discussion and discourse.) (09)
How does that sound? (010)
[Maybe we should bounce this off each other a bit, and then find
a way to post this (in its reiterated form) to the forum as a
guideline for future community work products.] (011)
Cheers. =ppy
// (012)
=ppy
-- (013)
Bob Smith wrote Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:17:46 -0700:
> Hi,
>
> Peter, thanks for verbalizing the IP Chain issue in a context of many
> continuing versions of these concepts.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:02 AM
> To: Rex Brooks; conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: [ontolog-admin]; Leo Obrst; Bob Smith
> Subject: Re: Writing/Editing the Summary Report of the Aug. 25, Health
> Informatics Panel Discussion
>
> > [RexB] I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am >
copying,
> could I shop this to media, for no remuneration?
>
> [ppy] my take: as far as Ontolog is concerned, its IPR policy
> (ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32)
> should rule.
>
> That said, I personally do want to see that community members do end
up
> 'gaining (both intellectually, opportunistically, commercially,
financially,
> ...) from their engagement with this CoP -- I trust that (to provide
> continuous value to its
> constituency) being the only way the CoP can be sustainable.
>
> That said, may I suggest that we have (a) an open, community
sanctioned
> summary report of the 8/25 session that will be published by Ontolog,
goes
> into its archives, gets used as the community submission to the Fed
HIT
> Conference, ...etc. But then, since authors actually hold the
copyrights
> (not Ontolog ...
> Ontolog just stipulates that they should carry an open content
license), you
> guys could re-factor that and shop it elsewhere (gratis, or for
> remuneration, as you see fit) as long as proper attributed is made (to
> Ontolog and the other contributors, namely Ontolog, the panelists, and
those
> participating in the discussion and discourse.)
>
> How does that sound?
> [Maybe we should bounce this off each other a bit, and then find a way
to
> post this (in its reiterated form) to the forum as a guideline for
future
> community work products.]
>
> Cheers. =ppy
>
> P.S. I'm routing this thread also to Leo (co-convener), Bob (planning
team)
> and [ontolog-admin] (open archive) to solicit further comments and a
record
> of this very useful dialog. =ppy
> --
>
>
> Rex Brooks wrote Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:04:54 -0700:
>
>>Hi Kurt,
>>
>>I wanted to take advantage of this brief window between meetings of
>>TCs which are finali zing specifications for public review to ask if
>>you would be so kind as to take on the task of writing and/or editing
>>a Summary Report of the Health Informatics Panel Discussion I am
>>moderating on Aug. 25, 2005?
>>
>>I understand that you are the chief Ontolog scribe, so to speak, or
>>historian, or perhaps managing editor might be the more accurate term.
>>Regardless, the job of preparing and moderating is more than
>>sufficient for my needs (small joke), This is especially so since I am (014)
>>on the spot to produce a pilot that is taking its not-so-merry time
>>getting to the point where I can actually start useful work, with less (015)
>>than a month, or perhaps a bit more if it misses its first target date (016)
>>of Sept. 14, and slips to Sept. 23.
>>
>>So, if you can do that, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>
>>I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am copying, could I
>>shop this to media, for no remuneration?
>>
>>I would like to get some publicity for these issues and I specifically (017)
>>am thinking about Federal Computer Week and Washington Technology.
>>
>>Ciao,
>>Rex
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (018)
|