<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Heather Morrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca" target="_blank">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">To me one way around this is to have a more generic term for an overarching concept, like "open knowledge" rather than "open science", or to consider the terms and movements as parallel and complementary rather than hierarchical.
<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Open Knowledge International (<a href="https://okfn.org/">https://okfn.org/</a> ) (was The Open Knowledge Foundation) has been formalising this for many years. One of the major contributions is the Open Definition (<a href="http://opendefinition.org/">http://opendefinition.org/</a>) which formulates and provides guidance on the use of "Open". <br></div><div>OK covers many aspects of human endeavour - government, data, literature, science ... I have never met anyone who equates "science" with the more general term "knowledge". For example we created the Panton Principles for Open Science Data (<a href="http://pantonprinciples.org/">http://pantonprinciples.org/</a>) to cover scientific data. There are complementary efforts in Open Government Data, Open Access (where CC BY but not CC NC fits the OD).<br></div><div><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div>
</div>
<div>Insight, anyone?</div>
<div><br>
</div><br clear="all"></div></blockquote></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069</div></div></div>
</div></div>