Working group around builder role for data/media curation tooling?

Hi there,

as onboarding seems to be at early stages, please apologize the question: is there already a working group around the builder role, namely software developers and data organizers? Specifically with some dedicated capacity invested/investable into the topic that’s very common with all these online groups regarding how to collect, organize, curate, augment records/recordings or other material?

In parallel, Google/YouTube only supports the Creative Commons BY 3.0 to be selected in the interface, while CC BY-SA 4.0 (and/or maybe 3.0 too for backwards-compatibility/homogenous-licensing with the Wikipedia for example) would be preferable. Does the choice on YouTube reflect the actual licensing as granted/offered by the creators/participants/license holders who contributed to the meeting recordings? Is there a chance that people potentially agreed to CC BY-SA 4.0 (or 3.0)? Other than that, did attendees before, during or after the meeting declare that they consent to the release of the recording under a particular license? Is there a process in place and consent indicated that people don’t mind the publication, in terms of not seeing their moral rights violated?

Copyright licensing doesn’t need to be a big issue here as the CC BY 3.0 is a free (as in digital user rights, liberty, freedom; not as in price) license if it applies or the recordings of the meetings, but it makes a significant difference in terms of how one reasonably might want to go about it.

Hi Stephan,

We are at the early stages of “working groups” (or maybe “guilds”) – we’ve talked about different ways they might work, but we don’t have any yet.

I think for now, we might discuss particular things to do or build either here in “Action!”, or in the Tools category.

I would be a member of the software/data guild (among other guilds).

As for moral/intellectual property rights, I have many thoughts about them :slightly_smiling_face:, but I don’t know how OGM intersects with them – might be a good question (or larger discussion) starting with @Jerry.

1 Like

So this could be a chance for prototyping/experimentation. Sure a lot goes into conceptualizing, organizing and coordinating a whole range of such working groups (therefore no hurry), and part of it might be the chicken&egg problem of tooling to aid with that :slight_smile: Anyway, asked early because it could well be that the tech/data work, if there should be such a thing, can take a long lead time and is relatively slow and laborious in general.

Didn’t post to the “Tools” category as it’s under “Design”, therefore assumed it’s probably more for planning a larger OGM platform or pre-existing tools, while I for now in this early stage would be prepared to invite folk to play around a little with material that’s already accumulating, potentially learning about and reviewing the usually rather specialized tools of their own developers tend to bring to the table, with focus on how two of them could work together on the common, shared data collection and ideally producing a result that can be used by a third, unrelated participant. Don’t know if this is a reasonable, realistic ambition, and far from quick/easy, but in my mind worth a try and be it for learning, doing it on the cheap, being prepared to scrap the results or ideally re-purpose/pivot them. Also collecting wants/needs/ideas, who could be supported by which kind of tool, presentation or data source/feed, might be a worthwhile early activity. Initial basic research and an attempt to learn some lessons.

Agree that there’s no need to prematurely expand the consideration of copyright licensing and other rights, just want to indicate briefly that it might be difficult or impossible to do it retroactively, that there doesn’t need to be a single answer as there can be different buckets, and that I personally wouldn’t want to work on or redistribute content without copyleft, or if there’s no clear consent/notifications, or if there’s objection/vetos, accepting that some early contributions can get lost/stuck in legal limitations. Nonetheless, there’s the option of passive embedding, referencing and merely personally curating some of the data that’s public anyway, perfectly safe and no need to allow this to become a blocking issue :slight_smile:

Makes sense, Stephan! :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Please tear it apart and contribute some criticism (constructive and/or actionable, of course) or suggestions for improvement :slight_smile: Half-joking, but half-not. Do you have some early, immediate data or tool needs? Gathered a few links/resources from the mailing list, wonder of useful, up-to-date, relevant they still are or will remain to be.

Trying to extract all the roles which were mentioned/suggested during the calls and in the mailing list, that’s probably way too expensive, so for now gather these from the other thread, not doing a survey yet as that would require a contact list or way to notify/invite, or setup of a form. Wider discussion about how to go about roles probably better not in this thread.

We are, of course, still in bootstrapping mode. So in a sense, we either need everything :slightly_smiling_face:, or not really that much.

I would say that OGM core immediately needed more “room” for discussion, and now we hopefully have that with this Discourse instance.

The very next thing, I think is a directory of… what? We don’t even quite know what it should be a directory of. Participants, Practitioners (and what they practice), “Guilds” (if that’s what we’ll call them). Maybe other groups that might be related, or we might want to engage in outreach to, or to federate with.

On this morning’s OGM call, Lauren mentioned already starting that with Google Docs and hashtags (I think). We can probably wrangle up a tool that’s a tiny bit better than that. Maybe a wiki-post here in Discourse to start, maybe a page or two on the OGM website, maybe some federated pages on several personal micro-websites, or on one micro-website backed by a git repo, that multiple people can contribute to.

Separately, OGM obviously has a big interest in mapping/visualization/knowledge management tools, which deserves its own directory or directories, perhaps which are not dissimilar to the people directory or directories above. In some ways that’s even a more immediate interest, at least for the Tools guild (or Visualization guild, or whatever), although it’s a little less of an immediate need.

That’s true, yes. E-mail fine as protocol, but bad tools/usage. I avoid that by simply using the Google Groups site of the list.

Could hugely expand on that, but don’t want to dominate or direct/endirt/preset what others might contribute/suggest/propose/request in this regard.

Out of exactly this context, I looked a little bit into the Google Docs exports and built something to clean their results up, so that’s XHTML then, and if they reasonably/properly went about designing some tagging syntax, that might be extractable and automatically correlatable. But that’s already again the way I usually do it :slight_smile: Other devs maybe do some plugin or integration or similar. Would assume that Lauren’s is mostly about creating such documents, and no other or low tech. Tagging basically needs tooling, and that’s a relatively unsolved larger architectural task to support it properly, for now better just little, quick things.

'tis a fine line between leadership and tyranny. :slight_smile:

I would say it’s in-bounds to build a small prototype or demo, and show it to others to see what they think. Either they’ll like it and join with you in promoting it, or give you constructive feedback.

Thanks, that’s helpful. Maybe give it a few days it might take more people registering on the Forum. I rather always prefer to join something or independently contribute, but in absence of established structures, why not co-develop some together :slight_smile:

2 Likes