On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Egon Willighagen wrote: > I think I incorrectly phrased my point... I meant: it is irrelevant if > a something is Open or not, with respect to becoming a standard. > (stupid double negations, and lack of bracket in English :)
Or I was being overly flippant. My real purpose was to point out that "Open Standards" is a thoroughly discussed topic - enough to have its own Wikipedia page. It mentions: One of the most popular definitions of the term "open standard", as measured by Google ranking, is the one developed by Bruce Perens. which links to http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html . Is there anything new to add to that list of principles? Anything which is specific to chemistry software? If not, I purpose just accepting that, rather like pointing to the opensource.org definition for clarification of "open source." For example, the BO position is that there must be community involvement, which is not listed in Perens' definition. The BO does not however list what constitutes the community, so I wonder if vendor's clients and potential clients constitutes a community, or for that matter if the employees of a company also constitute a community. Cheers, Andrew da...@dalkescientific.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list Blueobelisk-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
