[BaroquePony]

They should pay him to maintain his site. They are not very tech savvy.

[DownYonder]

The USDF should just partner with him or outright purchase his site and NOT waste member $$ on pure duplication. it is clearly an ego issue and that has no business in business!

Completely agree that if they wanted to use his concept, they should have partnered with him in some way. While I am sure there were some egos involved, (playing Devil's Advocate here ) it could be they realized their own in-house programmers could develop something similar, and since they were already on the payroll, why not use them instead of paying an "outsider"?

I'm certainly not an expert on intellectual property law, but it seem this would make for a very interesting legal case should CLS want to pursue that option.

[Derid]

Oh...my...word...
Velvetwhoisthroughtryingtoeducateluddites

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to insult those which disagree with your position.

No one here is a luddite, quite the contrary. Have you looked up the meaning of "luddite?"

[cnm161]

Derid, I think it's because she ran out of rolly-eyes.

USDF's servers do house their data. So if the access to the servers is the issue, then yes they're well within their rights (assuming they own those servers and assuming CLS doesn't have a membership) to restrict access to those servers to members. However, USDF is not the only source of new score data (Foxvillage, USEF, etc.). Food for thought.

Whether they _should_ or not is a bone of contention to me. I'm willing to pay higher membership costs ($5? $10?) if it allows for continued public access to score data, as I personally think it's an invaluable service to the dressage public that CLS and now this USDFscores site are doing.

[Derid]

USDF's servers do house their data. So if the access to the servers is the issue, then yes they're well within their rights (assuming they own those servers and assuming CLS doesn't have a membership) to restrict access to those servers to members. However, USDF is not the only source of new score data (Foxvillage, USEF, etc.). Food for thought.

Yes, I understand. However, this is a slippery slope that warrants caution on the part of USDF as they purchased their servers off membership fees and it was the volunteer efforts at shows that provided the raw data. And, as you correctly point out there are other sources of this data.

Whether they _should_ or not is a bone of contention to me. I'm willing to pay higher membership costs ($5? $10?) if it allows for continued public access to score data, as I personally think it's an invaluable service to the dressage public that CLS and now this USDFscores site are doing.

I'm not willing to pay extra for something that is easily sorted in a readable format once the code is written. That, has already been paid for by membership.

I am an amateur rider and was a participating member for years, I didn't get much for that participating membership from USDF IMO. Now, I support my local GMO and have been excluded from accessing data that I believe I paid for years ago. Requests from members for a database such as the one newly online at USDF have gone on for years. Oh, and those requests were promptly ignored until they were shamed in to action by someone acting privately. And, as always someone on the board said "and we can charge more for membership and they will just have to pay it" or something to that extent....

[Pony Fixer]

Thank you for stating the difference between DATA and DATABASE.

Velvet, I love ya, but USDF does not have exclusive rights to the data, and so cannot/should not exclude anyone from compiling such data.

USDF does have exclusive rights to their database of the data, which they can do with as they please. Then Jay/CLS would have to get the data the old fashioned way (looking at all the various primary sources).

The cream will rise to the top. It usually does.

[Velvet]

Thank you for stating the difference between DATA and DATABASE.

Velvet, I love ya, but USDF does not have exclusive rights to the data, and so cannot/should not exclude anyone from compiling such data.

USDF does have exclusive rights to their database of the data, which they can do with as they please. Then Jay/CLS would have to get the data the old fashioned way (looking at all the various primary sources).

The cream will rise to the top. It usually does.

Once more...no, people do not have a right to their data as it resides in their database. That was my point. The data is housed on a server and is organized in a database. No one has the right to that unless USDF says they can have it. If they choose to lock it down, that is their perogative.

That has been my point from the beginning. No one has a right to the USDF's data (doesn't matter where or how they gathered it...once said data is on their hardware and software, they have the right to secure it and use it for their own purposes). When discussing it as the USDF's data, it is theirs when it is housed on their servers. They can manage it any way they like. You cannot separate the two, in this instance because they have the right to secure it and hold on to it.

This, as I've also said, does not stop Centerline from going to other sources for their data. And if they had been more savvy about working (or not working, as the case may be) with the USDF, they would have set up their site to go to those other resources for the data.

So, Pony, it just seems people want to separate the two, when for discussion and access, they are not mutually exclusive, but rather data is an inclusive term as it is managed and, to the extent of the database and server, owned by the USDF.

[Velvet]

The fact that there's a difference between data (which is public record and has been published many places) and a database (which the USDF created from show results, which holds our official records even if incorrect, and lives on USDF-owned servers) does seem to be going over most heads in the discussion.

I remember being very surprised when Jay said that centerlinescores used the USDF database and they allowed it, given you have to (had to) pay for historical records. At the time everyone was up in arms and anti-centerlinescores.com. Funny how the perspective has changed.

The USDF has every right to lock down their databases and not allow Jay to access them in high volume. They can't keep him from the *data*, because they don't own that. But they most certainly do own their own databases.

I dunno, I don't think anything Velvet said was even controversial. If they choose to block Jay, they can - it's their server. It would have been smart to work out a partnership prior to creating the database. It could still be possible. Depending how Centerline gets the data from the USDF database it may or may not have effects on the USDF servers due to traffic - I don't know enough about the IT factors involved to say.

^

[Velvet]

USDF should hire Jay to set up their programs

I wonder what would have happened if Jay had talked to them first...

[Pony Fixer]

Velvet, I'm confused.

The data is out there. Show X gathers results from their competition, they send them to the USDF (I assume via Foxvillage), they put them on their website, often the GMOs website, etc. The USDF doesn't own the scores--otherwise they would bind the show managers to not sharing the data with others.

My GMO does not get our show results from the USDF to run our membership result database--we get it from the individual managers and then put it into our database that we (the GMO) paid to develop and maintain.

So the USDF doesn't own the data, just their database. A database can have "secret/proprietary" info, or common info that is used in a certain way per the database's permutations. So once the data is in their, then yes, USDF can do with it what they please. But Jay has stated that he collects data from multiple sources and he could readily obtain all of this information without the USDF. (At least that is my understanding).

Maybe this is a semantic debate? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you.

[Velvet]

It's semantics at this point. The "data" that resides on their servers is their data in that they've collected and compiled it. Not meaning no one else can find it on the internet, but when I've been talking about USDF "data" I've been talking about what they have on their servers. That they control that data and it is thus "their data."

Is that more clear? We're talking about the same thing, but people out here keep getting caught up in the idea of the data being available everywhere else and thus the data the USDF has on it's servers is not protected. They're right in that it's not owned in a way that copywrite laws apply, but they are wrong in that the USDF can lock it down and use it any way they see fit.

[Pony Fixer]

Ah, gotcha.
But I thought you were arguing that if USDF "locked down" it's data, then CLS would cease to exist? (I haven't read back). That isn't true, it just might mean more legwork for them.

Pleasure doing business with ya.

[Pony Fixer]

I wonder what would have happened if Jay had talked to them first...

He did. He offered to help them/work with them.

[Velvet]

I guess I'm still not clear on what he is getting from them and what he gathers from other sources. But that is something for Centerline to figure out!

I wonder what arrangement was offered. I know the USDF is full of people who are NOT tech savvy and yet make decisions on what is spent on technology. That always is amazingly stupid. Whether it's the USDF or a major corporation. Bean counters and luddites. Bah.

BTW, pony, it's nice to have someone out here understand!

[Pony Fixer]

Velvet, I don't know what Jay gets out of it, or what was offered to the USDF. I've spoken to him via email a couple of times--he maintains his GMO's database and as the "Horse of the Year" chair for my GMO I work closely with the person who runs our database.

It does state on his website that he uses USDF.org to get his data, but I don't think that is necessarily "the same" as using their database, but I have no information on that, nor do I care. I like his site, I have found it insightful/useful for what it is, etc. It is a much better presentation of the same data than the USDF site, IMHO.

It does seem silly that the USDF used some of our money to reinvent that wheel and I just may ask Janine about it next time I see her, which should be next month, just out of curiosity. Maybe there is more in store or something that we aren't privy to yet.

[ise@ssl]

Oh dear Velvet - every single dues paying member of the USDF has the RIGHT to any data that the USDF has.

"And away we go"!

[ShotenStar]

It's semantics at this point. The "data" that resides on their servers is their data in that they've collected and compiled it. Not meaning no one else can find it on the internet, but when I've been talking about USDF "data" I've been talking about what they have on their servers. That they control that data and it is thus "their data."

Is that more clear? We're talking about the same thing, but people out here keep getting caught up in the idea of the data being available everywhere else and thus the data the USDF has on it's servers is not protected. They're right in that it's not owned in a way that copywrite laws apply, but they are wrong in that the USDF can lock it down and use it any way they see fit.

Semantics matter. Greatly.

"Data" is like air molecules ... freely and widely circulating in the case of show results.

"USDF Database" is a set of tanks holding air in the USDF offices. Access to the tanks can be restricted per the USDF's needs / wants, and the mixture inside the tanks can be more than common air.

Use the terms correctly in order to have a productive discussion.

*star*

[Velvet]

If someone has a sign in their yard for free ponies and I go to them and get one, take it home, pay for a vet, farrier, training, etc., then use it for a lesson horse--does Jane Doe have a right to come over and ride it any time they want?

Honestly, this data is just like that once it is on the USDF servers. Free one place does not mean free everywhere once it is housed somewhere private. You can go back to free pony place and pick one up for yourself that is the same.

That is as simplified as I can make an analogy. And those of you offering the pony at my home to be ridden for free by the public are wrong and are thieves. You are using it without my giving those people paid lessons (because I only allow the pony to be ridden by those who pay for a lesson).

[Velvet]

Semantics matter. Greatly.

"Data" is like air molecules ... freely and widely circulating in the case of show results.

"USDF Database" is a set of tanks holding air in the USDF offices. Access to the tanks can be restricted per the USDF's needs / wants, and the mixture inside the tanks can be more than common air.

Use the terms correctly in order to have a productive discussion.

*star*

The term was being used correctly. Different situations create different restrictions to the data so ownership by location is valid and everyone should already understand that if the use a computer and the internet.

[AllWeatherGal]

Honestly, this data is just like that once it is on the USDF servers. Free one place does not mean free everywhere once it is housed somewhere private. You can go back to free pony place and pick one up for yourself that is the same.

Uhh ... no. The INSTANCE of the data is like the INSTANCE of the pony. We are not widely cloning ponies so, generally, there's only one instance of each.

There may be many instances of each piece of datum held in the USDF database and the USDF does not hold exclusive rights to each and every one of them.

carry on ...