I think you have a good point here. But I think there’s something to be said about early adopters, tipping points, and data standards that I want to say in reply, but I feel that it deserves a little more thought.

I think you just gave me a topic for my next blog post… Thanks! And please, keep an eye out for it, because I’d appreciate your feedback once I’ve figured out how to articulate my reply…

Sorry for the slow reply– I’ve been swamped this last week.

I’d be really happy to work with you on a fifth scenario… I think it would only add to the demo. And you’re right, the Amateur Scientist scenario really does point toward the possibilities of an API. It just left me with a lot of questions about what kinds of things the API will and will not allow users to do.

As a historian, it also left me wondering about metadata, etc. The one place you see the API really at work, it’s for an astronomer. Which left me thinking about metadata and standards and interoperability and all sorts of things. Implemented the right way, this could be an AMAZING resource for History of Science folks, and other interdisciplinary sorts who lie on the edges of the sciences and the humanities.

Part of the way I think we’re going to make progress on openness and the values and outcomes you articulate is by using the Smithsonian Commons to clarify and standardize our IP assertions and to demonstrate the value that can be created through unrestricted reuse and network effects.

I think this is the heart of it. And I think what I was really getting at is that the conversation needs to be overt (without shoving things down people’s throats, etc.) The Smithsonian is not exactly a monoculture. Heck, from my limited time there, I’m starting to see how much even the National Postal Museum is not at all a monoculture. I think that keeping people talking about it is key. And demonstrating value is a very important part of that.

At the AHA a couple years ago, there was a panel on whether or not the American Revolution was, historiographically speaking, a settled question. The three panelists quickly came to a consensus that it was not a settled question by a long shot– but that it was an abandoned question, for many scholars. It had just stopped being discussed as much. And that gives the illusion that consensus has been reached. And I think something like that is a real danger for issues of openness with large, bureaucratic organizations like SI when it comes to digital projects. If people don’t keep being reintroduced to the fundamental questions, there becomes an illusion that the question is settled. And human nature is to assume that it was settled because most people see things your way.

That’s kind of what I was getting at when I was talking about creating a culture that constantly interrogates the fundamental issues of openness.

Would you be willing to help me write a script for a fifth prototype story—one that addresses the kind of openness you want? I’ll produce it! The wiki is there waiting for us…

There are a variety of opinions about openness at the Institution right now, but the Smithsonian Web and New Media Strategy (http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/The+Smithsonian+Commons+–+A+Place+to+Begin) is clear about our intention to establish “intellectual-property permissions that clearly give users the right to use, re-use, share, and innovate with our content without unnecessary restrictions.” The strategy also invokes the precedents of the Creative Commons, Science Commons, ccLearn, the Flickr Commons, the Internet Archive, MIT Open Courseware, and others to show the direction we’re headed. In addition, we’ve asserted that enclosing and attempting to directly monetize access to collections “does not appear to be a sustainable business model.” These points are the foundation for the policy development process and cultural changes that will be necessary to really move forward.

(Note the word “unnecessary” in the strategy statement above – - some restrictions will be necessary because, for example, we don’t own copyright on everything in our collections, some collections are encumbered by legal privacy requirements, etc.)

Part of the way I think we’re going to make progress on openness and the values and outcomes you articulate is by using the Smithsonian Commons to clarify and standardize our IP assertions and to demonstrate the value that can be created through unrestricted reuse and network effects.

I agree completely that the Smithsonian Commons shouldn’t be just about building a bigger, better Smithsonian sandbox. (Though I’m coming to understand that our users are quite interested in having an excellent Smithsonian sandbox to play in!) While some of the commons prototype stories dwell on the specifics of user experience on our own Web sites, much of the effort of the prototype went into envisioning the good stuff that happens when clear and permissive IP policies and good user experience design encourage use outside the Institution: we give the teacher clarity about IP status and we save her a lot of time getting our stuff out of the commons and onto her desktop in a variety of formats; we give the amateur astronomer clarity about IP status and an API for access and reuse; the millennial is seeing the effects of our content almost everywhere but our Web sites.

Through the prototyping process we’re starting to give ourselves a comfort level with the aspirations and realities of open content. Also see the “What is a Commons” paper at http://www.slideshare.net/edsonm/m-4402558 for another point-of-reference on our thinking.

What I work on at work does not allow for openness unfortunately. And as long as other organizations are coming along and offering greater openness than we do, I think our days may be numbered. At some point, I’d love to spend some time chatting with you about this stuff. I spend my days trying to figure out how a multinational corporation can make money in this enterprise in the K-12 space. I’m not sure that it’s possible but you’ve been giving me much to think about.