Thanks for the input, Leo. (01)
>Are we still happy with the current wording? (02)
[ppy] I am. (03)
> Maybe we should rebroadcast the IP policy statement
> more generally? (04)
[ppy] Yes, indeed. This conversation is the lead-up to that post,
which I hope to make to the [ontolog-forum] list. (05)
Regards. =ppy
-- (06)
Obrst,Leo J. wrote Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:25:01 -0400:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Leo (07)
> -----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
>
> Thanks, Bob.
>
> On re-read ... I noticed minor errata which I am updating (and
> re-posting) as below:
>
> //
> > [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 (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.)
>
> 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
> //
>
> =ppy
> --
>
>
> 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
>
>
>>>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
>
>
>>>than a month, or perhaps a bit more if it misses its first target date
>
>
>>>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
>
>
>>>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/ (08)
|