# A new draft of the Open Source AI Definition: v.0.0.6 is available for comments **URL:** \ **Category:** Open Source AI\ **Tags:** process\ **Created:** [March 11, 2024, 8:11am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/a-new-draft-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-v-0-0-6-is-available-for-comments/260 "2024-03-11T08:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![ben-cotton](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/ben-cotton/32/115_2.png) [@ben-cotton](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/ben-cotton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2024, 11:40am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/a-new-draft-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-v-0-0-6-is-available-for-comments/260/6 "2024-03-14T11:40:52Z")
> [@stefano](#): > > where do you see the words `model data` in the draft? I don’t. That was sloppy wording on my part. But the broader point is that the inclusion of “data” as a precondition for an Open Source AI is inconsistent with the listing of “data” as an optional element in the following section. > [@fontana](#): > > I think this is not an inconsistency - the model parameters are not being classified as a “dataset” even though in a sense they are a kind of generated dataset. Or have I misunderstood your comment? I’m trying to reconcile “training data” being listed as both a precondition and an optional element. Perhaps the intent in the precondition is "you must be told what training data were used (e.g. ‘This model was trained on Ben’s Cool Dataset’) and the intent in the table is “it’s optional to provide the actual data from Ben’s Cool Dataset”. Since the preconditions include three elements (data, code model), I would expect to see the checklist reflect that. Instead the checklist has only data and code in the required section. Maybe my confusion is a matter of presentation and not substance? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/a-new-draft-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-v-0-0-6-is-available-for-comments/260)._