Rob Davies : How we got here

474 views
367 views

Published on

Presentation by Rob Davies
MDR Partners (Consulting) Ltd
at:
AccessITplus: Final project meeting
20 September 2013
Poznań, Poland

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
474
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rob Davies : How we got here

  1. 1. Europeana and AccessIT: how we got here Poznan,Poland 30 September 2013 Rob Davies, MDR Partners, Coordinator
  2. 2. 2005
  3. 3. 2008 “Digitisation and online accessibility are essential ways to highlight cultural and scientific heritage, to inspire the creation of new content and to encourage new online services to emerge. They help to democratise access and to develop the information society and the knowledge-based economy” -European Council of Ministers, Brussels 20 november 2008-
  4. 4. Vision “ A digital library that is a single, direct and multilingual access point to the European cultural heritage.” European Parliament, 27 September 2007 “A unique resource for Europe's distributed cultural heritage… ensuring a common access to Europe's libraries, archives and museums.” Horst Forster, Director, Digital Content & Cognitive Systems Information Society Directorate, European Commission
  5. 5. Europeana Foundation New Chair: Bruno Racine, Director French National Library Board of participants from the professional heritage associations • ACE: Association Cinémathèques Européennes • CENL: Conference of European National Librarians • CERL: Consortium of European Research Libraries • EMF: European Museum Forum • EURBICA: European Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives • FIAT: International Federation of Television Archives • IASA: International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives • ICOM Europe: International Council of Museums, Europe • LIBER: Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche • MICHAEL: Multilingual Inventory of Cultural Heritage in Europe • Europeana Network – six elected members
  6. 6. 2011 June 2013 26 million+ items 2000+ partner institutions
  7. 7. “there is a need for technical solutions for persistent identifiers” “Europeana should be widely promoted to end users” Meta data should be widely and eely available for re- use” “Eur 100 billion investment” “Public Domain material should be freely available for all”
  8. 8. Commission recommendation on digitisation and digital preservation, October 2011 • Member States to make solid plans for investments in digitisation of cultural material and access via Europeana • foster public-private partnerships to share gigantic cost ( estimated at 100 bn EUR) • Make 30 million objects available through Europeana by 2015 • including all Europe's masterpieces no longer protected by copyright + all material digitised with public funding • More in-copyright material online creating legal framework conditions • Reinforce strategies/legislation to ensure long-term preservation of digital material
  9. 9. Strategic Plan 2011-2015
  10. 10. Data Exchange Agreement
  11. 11. Recent Developments and Future Vision • New services and functionalities in portal • Funding battle • Core funding of Europeana from 2014-2020 through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) • Rights labelling campaign • User Generated Content • 1914-18 and 1989 campaigns under Europeana Awareness • More use - and re-use • Not just a portal:„put content where the users are‟ (API) • Creative industries, tourism, education, genealogy, fashion, researchers • Cloud services and infrastructure • More support for smaller institutions e.g. LoCloud
  12. 12. Metadata: mapping, harvesting and normalisation • Europeana harvests and indexes descriptive metadata associated with digital objects • OAI-PMH compliant repositories and aggregations • No single universal cross-domain metadata standard • Europeana Semantic Elements (ESE) developed for Europeana prototype, Nov 2008 • Contributors map elements from their own metadata format to ESE • Normalisation carried out on some values to enable machine readability.
  13. 13. Europeana Data Model (EDM) • Starting point: ESE (Europeana Semantic Elements) • • • • lowest common denominator for object metadata forces interoperability flat model major drawback: richness of the original metadata is lost • Goal is move to a model that allows more sophisticated representation of data • EDM will preserve original data while still allowing for interoperability • Semantic Web representation • Semantic linking between objects (Linked Open Data – RDF/XML)
  14. 14. Cultural artefact Buildling Sculpture The general picture Networked objects Painting
  15. 15. Main Goals  Best Practice Network  Demonstrate contribution of cultural institutions at local and regional level • Proof of Concept  Put in place infrastructure that will continue to increase the content available to Europeana • OAI-PMH repositories • Europeana compliant metadata • Manageable number of aggregations  Enhance the skills, expertise and motivation required to support local institutions  Evidence through impact study
  16. 16. Main phases (2008-11) • Year 1 Preparation, planning, training • Year 2 Training, implementation and content delivery (continuing into Year 3) • Year 3 Dissemination at national and regional level • National Awareness Raising Meetings in 27 countries
  17. 17. Main results • Content providers in 27 countries • National aggregators of local/regional content where identifiable: national institutions, ministries, private etc • A willing, innovative region or institution in other countries • Contributed about 20% current total content in Europeana….by 2011! • Over 5 million items • Expansion of content providers (700+) throughout Europe • Public libraries, museums, archives • Progress in aggregation of local/regional content • Job not yet complete: • representation of most/all European localities an important goal • Most technical challenges resolved • longer term systemic problems (finance, qualified staff availability, aggregation, skills) remain
  18. 18. AccessIT • AccessIT (Accelerate the circulation of culture through exchange of skills in information technology) • Culture (2007-2013) • Strand 1.2.1 (cooperation projects) • 1 May 2009 – 30 April 2011 • Partners • • • • • MDR Partners (Coordinator) Instytut Chemii Bioorganicznej Pan –PSNC (Poland) Veria Central Public Library (Greece) Belgrade City Library (Serbia) Turkish Librarians Association
  19. 19. Main goals • Practical training and skills development, guidance • Enable smaller, local cultural organizations to prepare and contribute digital content • Establish/enhance training and competence structures in each country • Improving content flow to Europeana • Extend Europeana Local to countries not covered by ISTPSP
  20. 20. What skills are we talking about…so far? • • • • • • • • Good practice in digitisation and content creation Management of metadata and vocabularies (using Europeana standards) Collection development, description and management Selection and prioritization of digital content Infrastructures for enabling metadata harvesting (OAIPMH) Management and expression of content rights Developing new services Handling user generated content
  21. 21. Why AccessITplus? • What is Europe? • Culture and history • Limitations of geographical scope within IST-PSP • Especially SouthEast Europe • Culture 2007-13 Programme included Bosnia, Serbia and Turkey • and Albania (as a „3rd Country‟) • Implementation Partners • • • • Rijeka (Croatia) NULRS (BiH) Shkodra (Albania) – third country Tuzla (BiH) • MDR, PSNC, Belgrade, Veria from AccessIT
  22. 22. Key results of AccessIT(plus) 1. Certificated online courses for professional enrolment in national languages 2. Digital libraries: repositories or aggregations harvested by Europeana
  23. 23. Thank you rob.davies@mdrpartners.com

×