Definition, work and features of the Network and the three major distinctive features of the ICT (informationalism) defined by Prof. Castells at Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint (see http://www.ictconsequences.net/wiki/index.php?title=The_Network_Society_a_cross_cultural_perspective#Chapter_1._Informationalism.2C_networks.2C_and_the_network_society:_a_theoretical_blueprint_pp.3-45._Castells.2C_M._Chapter_link

could help us to develop an approach in terms of relation between social structure and technological paradigm.

I think we need to foster at the core and in the expressions. What I am scratching at is how looking at the core helps us (or not) accelerate our success in fostering the expressions. I don’t quite know how to go about this journey yet, but my sense is that it is important. And, as with any good uncharted journey, I am always looking for co-conspirators.

On the law of two feet: very cool to learn of Tiebout. I’d never heard of him. Of course, his contribution doesn’t make two feet voting any less a part of the open space DNA. However, it is interested to watch the routes through which these ideas grow.

Keep well and good luck with the seminar today.

MS

Interesting the chart you picture, way more “conceptual” than my own. I agree we should find the common ground of all this “openness” so we can foster the idea at its core, not at its expressions.

BTW, two comments:
- how is it that there was no reference to the Cape Town Declaration at the Wikipedia?
- while I like Harrison Owen’s idea dubbed “The Law of Two Feet”, I think it’s pretty unfair to credit it to him: Charles Tiebout developed it in 1956 in his “foot voting” model (the Tiebout model)

Be telling you about the seminar, which takes place this monday :)

Great work on this open paradigm piece. We need to do more of this thinking across the different ‘opens’ to see what the patterns and opportunities are.

I took a shot at a similar reflection, going a bit beyond software/content/knowledge to include systems, social and organizational domains where people use the concept of ‘open’. My quick musings on the subject are here:
http://commonspace.typepad.com/commonspace/2008/02/open-vs-open-vs.html
I’d love to hear how your seminar goes.

PS. thanks for referencing the Cape Town Declaration.

Paco, I agree and I’ll change it right now. That was a good point.

Peter, nice to read from you! I read your comment on Teemu Leinonen’s blog about the OLPC (see my answer here, BTW).

About the wiki, yes, I think I focused too much on formal publishing (articles and so). Thus, I added wiki as a publishing tool and Wikipedia as an emblematic initiative of Open Publishing.

Also removed Wikipedia as Open Science.

And, under the OER section, added the wiki as a tool and Wikiversity as emblematic initiative. I don’t want to (and cannot) be comprehensive, so I chose Wikiversity and left aside WikiEducator and Curriki. I someone thinks my election was wrong, please let me know.

Many thanks for your hints, they were really useful to me :)

I’m aligned with Eric comment, where is the wiki? Should the wiki (MediaWiki, etc…) be under Open Publishing->Software and then have under OER a new entity Wiki which has a number of attributes; Wikipedia, Wikiversity, WikiEducator, Curriki, etc…

Great mind-map by the way!!!

I have my doubts but, honestly, my reasons are more feelings than real arguments. Just compare with the others I listed.

I guess I’ll add it in Open Science / Emblematic initiatives. I feel more comfortable having it there.

Any more hints?
I’m truly open about this.