Europeana en CARARE


Published on

Symposium Nederlands erfgoed in Europees perspectief, 31 januari 2013, Amersfoort

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Europeana en CARARE

  1. 1. Europeana and CARARE Amersfoort, 31 januari 2013 Jan Molendijk
  2. 2. Europeana• Why – purpose• When – origin and history• Where – european project in The Hague??• What – deliverables/results• How – method• Challenges
  3. 3. Europeana - Why• Online access to cultural heritage• Alternative to??• Yes and no…
  4. 4. Europeana - vision• Search through all of Europe’s cultural heritage, using your own language, and get results that are relevant, inspiring, educational, fun• Europe’s digitised cultural heritage accessible and used more, either through Europeana portal, or 3rd party tools (e.g., games, Blackboard, online learning, blogs, etc.)• C-H sector cooperating throughout Europe and across domains sharing best practices, specialist knowledge, software, tools
  5. 5. Europeana - Why• Focus on access and findability, not on storage• Mainly from trusted sources – Starting UGC experiments• Metadata search – Starting full text search experiments• Multi-domain: libraries, museums, archives, audio-visual archives – Add publishers’ content?
  6. 6. Europeana - When• Initiative in 2006, letter from Sarkozy and 6 other European leaders, in response to Google Books initiative• Building on previous projects (e.g. TELnet)• 2008 launch of prototype – 2M objects• 2010 stable production version (Rhine) – 10M objects, proper backend tooling/processes• 2011 search and user interface enhancements (Danube) – 15M objects, nice(r) search features• 2013 EDM based release (see – 24M objects, richer metadata, improved,
  7. 7. Europeana - Where• The Hague, in the building of the KB, the Dutch National Library• 35 people, from UK, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece, Romania, New Zealand, Canada, and Holland• + 3 people in UK, 2 in Greece• Dozens of people in contributing projects throughout Europe• Development Environment in Pisa, Production System in Amsterdam and Almere• Users all over the world
  8. 8. Europeana - What• Database of metadata• Aggregation/ingestion infrastrcuture• Website/portal, API, LOD• Processes / best practices – Development and integration – Ingestion• Thematic network – Knowledge exchange – Policies (e.g. Public Domain Charter)• Open Source software
  9. 9. Europeana - What• Over 24.000.000 objects• Text, images, sound, video, 3D• From 31 countries: Europe + Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia• All metadata available under CC0 license• Portal: over 20.000 visits per day and growing• API over 80 implementations• LOD
  10. 10. Europeana - How• A lot of meetings, a lot of travelling• Financed through eContentPlus project Europeana Version 1/2/3 + contributions from national ministries• Aiming for sustainable funding under CEF from 2014/15• About 20 other projects to work with, of which 2 are big technology projects
  11. 11. Europeana - How• Germany alone has 30K C-H institutions, we estimate Europe has 200K+• Need to work through aggregators – National (e.g.,, Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek) – Domain Specific (e.g., TEL, EFG) – Thematic (e.g., E. Travel, E. Judaica)• Sustainability of Europeana – And of aggregators…
  12. 12. CARARE• Challenging project• One of the first to apply EDM as a delivery format to Europeana• Passionate about metadata quality• Especially strong on geolocation data
  13. 13. Vragen?
  14. 14. Challenges• Cooperation on a European scale, getting all 27+ countries to participate• Operational reality vs. Project fantasy – E.g., “all countries must provide more that 5% of the content” ☺• Project bureaucracy• Numbers game vs. Quality of objects• Budgets for digitisation and preservation are limited• IPR and copyright issues – Re-use of data and images – 20th century black hole• Cooperation or competition with commercial parties?
  15. 15. European projects (1)• Paper• Words have a tendency to grow into work• Detailed planning 2-3 years ahead, changes must be accounted for in detail• Mostly 50-80% funded – need to find matching funds• Travel almost seems to be a goal – Which is A Good Thing: furthers cooperation
  16. 16. European projects (2)• Project funding precludes longer term commitments, e.g., to hosting partners, to employees.• 2-3 years focus vs. 500+ years commitment• What happens when a project ends? – Example: Digitization project Russian Archive• Multilinguality pushed – Common language is ‘bad english’ – 1 -> 6 -> 27 languages