On 04/02/2012 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
*Ainda esta semana, a UNESCO abrirá a versão
consolidada durante esse
encontro no site _http://oercongress.weebly.com/paris-declaration.html_
para comentários. Acompanhem o site!*
Legal Carol, já mandei meus comentários, copio eles abaixo caso vocês
queiram incluir algum dos pontos nos comentários de vocês também!
--comentários (em inglês, perdão não tou c/ tempo pra traduzir)--
Paragraph "c." defines open licensing as a spectrum of different kinds
of uses, instead of the usual any kind of use. That is not only
confusing and divergent from the wider open movement, but very troubling
in that it in practice limits the full social benefit of OER, plagues it
with bottomless license compatibility issues, and increases the
complexity of understanding and applying OER.
We want to include a spectrum in order to accommodate groups at
different stages of understanding of OER, but it should appear in the
commitment, not the definition.
It should say:
"Promote and adopt legal frameworks for open licensing and, when not
achievable, of alternative licensing. Open licenses refer to legal
frameworks which allow any kind of use, optionally requiring preserving
the license in modified works. Alternative licenses refer to allowing
different kinds of uses. They should facilitate the use, re-use,
modification, translation and sharing of educational materials. The
educational community should enhance its understanding of open licensing."
Paragraph "h." mentions open standards, but fails to communicate the
pivotal role they play in OER. The declaration is missing a paragraph
specific for a commitment to open standards, replicating what paragraph
"c." does for open licensing.
It should say:
"Promote and adopt open standards. Open standards refer to technical
frameworks which allow developer independence and interoperability. They
should facilitate the use, re-use, modification, translation and sharing
of educational materials. The educational community should enhance its
understanding of open standards."
Including this new paragraph would also allow us to drop the last
sentence of paragraph "h."
Paragraph "h." does not mention the need for modification of OER in its
first two sentences. Modification needs facilitation through the
proposed means as much as the other actions.
The first two sentences should read:
"Facilitate the identification, retrieval, sharing and modification of
OER. Expanding the use of OER requires that it be simple to find,
retrieve and modify them, as well as keeping track of modifications."
Paragraph "i." is poorly written. First, it explicitly allows
authorities to impose "any restrictions they judge necessary" on top of
an already conditional statement that begins with "may wish to".
There is obviously no need for the double compromise, so the allowance
in parenthesis should be removed as it is both redundant and contrasts
with the spirit of the declaration.
Then, the paragraph proceeds by using the term "under open licenses"
instead of "as Open Educational Resources", which would be a more
appropriate choice of commitment and would also cover issues regarding
open standards and avoid complications from further changes to definitions.
Well, that's all folks!