(2) Abstract

It has become commnplace to praise the Web as "open" or to hear impassioned defenses of "the Open Web." But what does it mean for an information system to be open? Today we will examine some varying definitions of openness, and guest speaker Dan Perkel [http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/dperkel/] will present some questions about issues about "openness" raised by his study of deviantART [http://www.deviantart.com/].

(3) "Open"

• In discussions of the Web, people often use the word "open"
• Two primary senses (OED [http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00332387?query_type=word&queryword=open&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=3&search_id=y5KK-O7xHPF-9677&hilite=00332387]):
  • Not restricted to a few, generally accessible or available; such that anyone may use it, share it, or take part in it.
  • Exposed to general view or knowledge; existing, performed, or carried on without concealment or so that all may see or hear; known; public.
• First definition emphasizes freedom to act
• Second definiton emphasizes freedom to see or transparency
• "Open" is a hooray word [http://books.google.com/books?id=zh3rjwjAz7UC&pg=PA75]
  • Positive connotations yet vague enough that no one can take issue with it

(4) "Open" according to Google [1]

At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect]-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.

Jonathan Rosenberg, "The meaning of open" [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html], Official Google Blog, 2009

(5) Is the Web open?

• Physical level: the actual physical infrastructure (wires and radio spectrum that carry data)
  • Not open: physical infrastructure is by and large private property
• Logical level: the standards that define the Web and the software that implement it
  • Standards are open. Much software is open source, but much is not and some only in name
• Content level: what we read, write, see, watch, show
  • No simple answer. Complex interaction of laws, social structure, technical architecture
  • Who controls creation, dissemination, consumption, re-dissemination, re-use?

(6) "Open" according to Google [2]

• Google focuses on the logical level ("open technology") and the content level ("open information")
• Emphasis on consumer choice, competition, innovation, and growth
  • "Our commitment to open systems is not altruistic. Rather it's good business"
• Open technology means open source code and open standards
• But code should be open only when it doesn't "hurt users"
  • Google decides what will hurt users
  • opening up search and ads technology is off the table
• Open information is narrowly defined to focus on Google's storage of user data
  • transparency: let users see what information Google has
  • control: enable users to modify, delete or move this information

(7) "Open" according to Facebook [1]

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/23/facebook-open-graph/]

(8) "Open" according to Facebook [1]

• Anyone can read metadata embedded in HTML pages
• Created and implemented by more than one company
• Available under an open license

David Recordon, "What does the 'open' in 'open graph protocol' mean?" [http://groups.google.com/group/open-graph-protocol/msg/5b700e5b7e563acf?pli=1], 2010

(9) Conclusions

• No simple definitions of openness. Depends on
  • technological level (physical, logical, content)
  • business models
  • law & policy
• Despite positive connotations, openness is not always desirable
  • Security on the Web [Security & Privacy; Security on the Web (1)] requires denying "freedom-to-act"
  • Privacy on the Web [Security & Privacy; Privacy on the Web (1)] requires denying "freedom-to-see"
• Case study: DeviantArt and open sharing of content on the Web