Ga strategic needfornewagreement_norwegian aggregator


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • 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
  • Halo, And our warmest thanks to the national library, the ministry of culture and the national digital library for having us here. And thank you all for coming today to find out more about Europeana’s Data Exchange Agreement. Hopefully the day will give plenty of room to discuss any questions and issues there may be arising from this agreement. In my presentation I aim to walk you through the strategic reasons that dictated the development of this agreement, the process we followed for its development with the network and where we stand today. Ultimately, my goal for the day is to help understand how the new agreement is embracing an open philosophy for sharing cultural information on the web.
  • over the past three years we had an agreement with providers based on the principles of the creative commons attribution non-commercial license although not a standised CC-BY-NC license.
  • And last year we set on a mission to change the agreement and put these 20m normalised and enriched metadata records in the public domain for everyone to re-use without restrictions. Naturally, this was not easily accepted by the cultural heritage community.
  • Why did we want to do that?
  • First of all, because this is what our stakeholders want. And I will explain myself. Last year as part of defining our Strategy for the coming years, we asked our stakeholders what values Europeana should be delivering to them for the years to come. Our users said they wanted a trusted source, that would be easy to use and re-use in their school and leisure projects; that they could reach from their regular workflows and customary interfaces, that is, they didn’t want to have to go on to access cultural data.
  • The cultural institutions said they wanted more visibility to end-users and to politicians and the development of new services with their data that could bring potentially more revenues to them
  • European politicians said they wanted Europeana to contribute to social and economic inclusion through making culture more accessible to citizens. Primarily this would happen by embedding more widely the cultural data in the educational sector in europe. They also expected Europeana to take the leadership in innovating the cultural heritage sector. Through innovation in the cultural sector they expected Europeana to contribute to economic growth in Europe.
  • We also asked commercial players, such as telecoms, technology companies, search engines and interactive whiteboard developers and they said they wanted a one-stop-shop to access data and the providers in Europe, that they would be willing to pay for premium services and they valued the brand association Europeana was offering with the cultural sector.
  • So, it was clear that Europeana could not be a destination portal any more and that we needed to bring the data where the users are To share it on our providers’ sites - even the ones that show some commercial activity with wikipedia - that requires all information that is available on their site to be available for free re-use To publish the data On academics’ blogs- even ones that display google adds To publish the data On commercial sites that can help our providers’ generate income To share the data On apps that are developed for educational uses and for tourism- and we need public-private partnerships or commercial companies with better know-how to be developing and to be funding such apps. To publish it as linked open data in order to make full use of the potential of the semantic web to improve the richness and the functionalities around the data Ultimately, we want to do all this to stimulate users’ engagement with culture in order to create more culture, more knowledge and hopefully more creative projects and money for everyone And to do all these at the same time we need a very open license in order to provide unobstructed re-use of the data We could basically do none of these under the previous agreement we had with our providers which imposed a non-commercial clause in the re-use of the data
  • These are reflected in Europeana’s strategic plan for 2011-2015 and in particular in the distribute and engage paths.
  • There were parallel important developments we took into account when we started to advocate for open cultural data. A comite des sages report was published ealy this year and recommended that
  • Metadata related to the digitised objects produced by the cultural institutions should be widely and freely available for re-use.
  • Also there was the example of other individual institutions that were pioneers in releasing their data under an open license like the BL that released their national bibliography early in 2010 under a CC0 license. This is a slide that was presented to the library’s decision makers by the internal advocates for open data. It recaps a lot of arguments in favor of open data and says- among other things- that there is increasing awareness that data that has been created with tax payers money should be available for wider re-use. So, a big institution realises that it’s part of it’s mission to offer free re-use of their metadata. That freeing metadata would stimulate the knowledge economy that in turn would generate tax revenue, business opportunities and jobs via innovation.
  • There is also a strong commitment from the Commission to support opening up of data that has been created with tax-payers’ money. This is the Nellie Kroes, Commissioner for the Digital Agenda who says that … For the commission, Open data would be the fuel to drive economic and social growth.
  • Now, that was a bit about why Europeana is advocating for free metadata re-use. And this slide is about why we had to abandon the idea of developing our own home grown license and adopt what seems to be a standardised license valid internationally. These days a lot of organisations are developing their own home grown licenses for releasing or locking up data. The UK for example developed its own Open Government license. The point is that we need interoperable licenses to allow data to talk to each other. Much like the ethernet protocol makes it possible to make the different parts of the computers to talk to each other, TCP/IP makes it possible for different computers to talk to each other, the http/ftp makes it possible to interchange documents and applications. This is why data need interoperable licenses in order to be able to talk to each other. Otherwise communication is hindered by the different obstacles each provider puts with regards to the data re-use. And combining two many different flavours of open data licenses is going to ruin the soup.
  • So, these are the reasons that led to the adoption of the Data Exchange Agreement by the Europeana Foundation last september.
  • What are the main changes the new agreement brings? It drops all restrictions in the metadata reuse It uses an internationally recognised standardised license for the release fo the data. It is a more simple agreement, worded in better legal terms It is the result of a long process of open consultation with the network which has helped significantly improved the content of the agreement Combines data provider and data aggregator agreement in one: the data exchange agreement We also suggest to providers to only give to Europeana what they feel comfortable sharing No need to provide metadata for complete or all collections Paul will walk you through the new agreement later in detail
  • In the process that led up to the adoption of the new agreement, we consulted as broadly as possible with the network. We did a lot of talking and listening at dedicated workshops with museums, libraries and archives to assess with them the risks and rewards of opening up access to metadata. This has been a very useful exercise that we are repeating today with you. We held two rounds of consultations with our network on our new license. This helped improve a lot the content of the agreement. At the second round of consultations we received an 88% positive replies to the agreement. We had to raise awareness about existing initiatives like the british library publishing their data as CC0 and around new concepts for the cultural sector such as linked open data and business models for open data We had to create evidence about good re-use of the data and we run four hackathons also for commercial applications and an LOD pilot with some pioneer partners. We had to do some research- we commissioned a paper on the compliance of CC0 with the german national jurisdiction because it is one fo the most strict copyright laws. And last, but not least, we created a website to exlain our reasoning behind our Open data activities and our new agreements and to keep everyone informed about these developments
  • Now, I would like to stand briefly on the workshops because these have been the most important element of the process. The workshops concetrated at identifying the risks and the rewards of open unrestricted metadata re-use on the internet and what this involved for libraries, archives, museums. There are several risks that were identified by the institutions at the wokrhsops we did as you see on the slide. Institutions are afraid of losing quality, losing control of where the metadata is used online, sometimes by Nazis or porn sites. They are afraid that the context of the information will be lost and the connection with the institution will also be lost which will result in the diminishin of their brand value. Loss of attribution was also very important and loss of income or rather of potential income as very few institutions were actually making money out of selling their metadata. There were fears as well of unwanted spillover effects. By releasing their metadata for free, memory institutions are afraid that they will lose control over their data. They were also afraid that they would potentially lose income although there were very few libraries that actually made money out of selling hteir metadata. And these were the BL, the BNF and the German library that are also publishing them openly. The British Library in its press release about the release of their bibliographic data under a CC0 license said that it didn’t harm their business model because they would continue selling their Marc21 records while they were releasing their records for free in a Dublin Core format. The german national library is using a time embargo. That is, it is first selling their data and releasing it as open after a few months had passed. Insitutions were also afraid about potential damage to their reputation if the data was placed in wrong contexts, ie combined with nazi or pornographic content for example. There was though very little evidence of any such misuse.
  • On the other hand the institutions identified a number of rewards for opening up access to their metadata: they expected that this would increase the relevance of their resources if new links could created with related material that is held elsewhere It would increase the relevance as well of their insitutions to the users It would create more channels to get to the usrs It would help enrich the content by involving end-users and professionals from the broader cultural heritage community They see these as something that will enhance their brand value, their funding opportunities, the discoverability of their resources and the users They felt that giving wide access to their metadata is compliant with their public mission It would also help them build expertise and will increase the desired spill-over effects
  • These are the main risks and the main rewards the participants identified so far and it was also felt that over time and with proper risk management the rewards outpassed the risks. We have been taksed though by the network to explore furhter with all the possible stakeholders the risks and to come up with solutions so we hope to be able to talk further about these with you later today.
  • So, I talked about the need to create evidence. There were not so many examples of open metadata re-use out there which made institutions even more sceptical about releasing their metadata. So we had to create our own evidence.
  • We created a Linked Open data pilot. Via word of mouth practically, we invited some of our partners to allow us to publish their data as LOD. This 3m data is now online. If you want to know more, check
  • And it’s true- there is not yet evidence of reuse of our LOD but we are proud that Europeana is positioned now somewhere in the extreme right of the Linked data cloud. And this is strangely beautiful
  • There is though much more evidence of god reuse from our API from a significant number of hackathons which we run this year. I will leave though the description of all that to my colleague David Haskiya.
  • The frist prize in the commercial potential went to this application which I hope to be able to show to you. It’s an app for android developed by a polish team. [try to show the video] You take a picture of an artwork, it uses image recognition, it fetches the Europeana record and reads it out loud for you if you want.
  • And I will skip the following slides
  • The Audience Awardw went to Timebook- a facebook like application for historical people whose works are in Europeana. It mashes up content with Dbpedia and shows a portrait of the artist, Links to his friends , namely other contemporary artists and his works All these are very interesting indeed for showing the potential of europeana data and I encourage you to see more apps developed at our webpage.
  • I wil come back to the agreement, and to the process. we tried to be as transparent and inclusive in the process that led to the new agreement. We created this dedicated page that includes all relevant information.
  • We have published there some metadata principles that Europeana adopted where we state for example that Europeana itself doesn’ t plan to monetise on the use of the metadata.
  • We’ve published there our guidelines for the use of the metadata where we encourage users to give credit where credit is due. These guidelines will be embedded for example in our LOD
  • And, we’ve planned moreadvocacy activities. We definitely need to keep up the work on talking with the institutions. There will be more workshops and individual meetings with providers to explain why it’s good to open up your metadata We are creating an animation to explain what the LOD is We’ll try as well to operationalise some of the apps that have been created in order to show the cool stuff that can eb done. We will be publishing a paper on the business models of Open Data for the Cultural Heritage sector as a result fo a workshop we did with directors of major cultural institutions in June
  • Where are we now? The conference of the European National Librarians has endorsed the new agreement as well as EUscreen- the aggregator for tv heritage in Europe
  • We will try to get everyone to sign by the end of December. We will leave a grace period of 6 months for any eventual reharvesting needed. The CC0 will be applied to all Europeana data as of 1st of July 2012. All data on europeana for which there is no Data Exchange Agreement signed with the provider will be removed from the site
  • Thank you and without further due I will pass on the floor to David
  • Ga strategic needfornewagreement_norwegian aggregator

    1. 1. Europeana Data Exchange Agreement: Embracing an open philosophy for sharing metadata on the web Georgia Angelaki, Europeana
    2. 2. CC-BY-NC (like)
    3. 3. CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
    4. 4. Why?
    5. 5. Users: Trusted source Ease of use Re-use In my workflow
    6. 6. Cultural Institutions: Visibility Services Revenue
    7. 7. Politicians: Inclusion Education Leadership Economic growth
    8. 8. Market: Straightforward route to content Access to the network Premium services Brand Association
    9. 10. AGGREGATE DISTRIBUTE FACILITATE ENGAGE Europeana Strategic Plan 2011-2015 1 3 2 4
    10. 12. Metadata related to the digitised objects produced by the cultural institutions should be widely and freely available for re-use . Key recommendations, p5
    11. 13. Public Sector Data - Changing Expectations <ul><li>The advent of the Web accelerated the development of a collaboration culture & fostered an expectation that information, metadata & content should be as freely available as the Internet itself </li></ul><ul><li>Many wider benefit arguments have been advanced for public bodies to make their data freely available </li></ul><ul><li>2009 saw an increasing Government commitment to the principle of opening up public data for wider re-use. The Putting the Frontline First: smarter government report requires “ the majority of government-published information to be reusable, linked data by June 2011” </li></ul>Benefit for state Benefit for public body <ul><li>Stimulation of knowledge economy will generate tax revenue, business opportunities & jobs via innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Public sector information is an underexploited resource & governments should maximise state benefits from their initial investment </li></ul><ul><li>Encourages diversity of resources – no single supplier can create all services or content </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpayers have already paid once for data creation, why pay again? </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal development required since the data is already created </li></ul><ul><li>Possible data cleanup for re-harvesting by organisation </li></ul><ul><li>User generated or added linked content may enhance internal data </li></ul><ul><li>Offers free R&D & Management Information opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>New opportunities for collaboration to assist internal efficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>Increased reputation/relevance seen as inclusive community partner </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities to offer new value added services on back of free offering </li></ul>
    12. 14. When public data (which already has been created at public expense) is made openly available for re-use, everybody can benefit: Citizens get better information, companies can come up with new business opportunities and public administrations will (or anyhow should) be grateful for others to work and add value for everybody: this is win-win.
    13. 16. Published 20 September 2011 Published 20 September 2011 Result of long series of negotiations with content providers & aggregators.
    14. 17. Main Changes <ul><li>Drops “Non-commercial use only” (NC) </li></ul><ul><li>Drops “Attribution” (BY) </li></ul><ul><li>Drops “Share-alike” restriction (SA) </li></ul><ul><li>Adopts a standardised license </li></ul><ul><li>Simpler than previous agreements </li></ul><ul><li>Only give to Europeana what you are comfortable with </li></ul><ul><li>No need to provide metadata for complete or all collections </li></ul>
    15. 18. The Process <ul><li>Workshops on risks and rewards of open licenses – (September 2010-December 2012) </li></ul><ul><li>Workshops and presentations (APENET, ATHENA, EFG, EUSCREEN) </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop with directors of museums, libraries, archives and av on the business models of open data </li></ul><ul><li>Online consultation with the network between December 2010 and January 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Second round of consultation with whole network in May </li></ul><ul><li>4 Hackathons in June (Barcelona, Poznan, London, Stockholm) </li></ul><ul><li>LOD pilot </li></ul><ul><li>Paper commissioned on the compatibility of CC0 with German jurisdiction </li></ul><ul><li>Dedicated website about open data and our new agreement </li></ul>
    16. 19. Risks identified in the workshops
    17. 20. Rewards identified in the workshops
    18. 22. <ul><li>Related Europeana activities </li></ul>
    19. 23. Europeana Linked Open Data Pilot <ul><li>9 direct providers representing </li></ul><ul><li>300 libraries, museums, archives and av collections </li></ul><ul><li>16 countries </li></ul><ul><li>3,5 m records </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot went live in June </li></ul><ul><li>Proof that nothing bad will happen </li></ul><ul><li>It’s a pilot- it’s still subject to change </li></ul><ul><li>CC0 is cleared for this data </li></ul><ul><li>Check it out: </li></ul>
    20. 25. Digital Agenda Day API Hackathons <ul><li>Hack4Europe! </li></ul><ul><li>About 85 developers participated </li></ul><ul><li>With a majority being independent developers or representing SMEs </li></ul><ul><li>Creating 48 prototypes </li></ul><ul><li>Why: to showcase the social and commercial value of open cultural data </li></ul><ul><li>With 14 winners in the categories and local special awards </li></ul>
    21. 26. Winner of the Commercial Potential Award: Art4Europe http:// =C6PEz2d7OLE
    22. 27. Winner of the Innovation Award: TimeMash
    23. 28. Winner of the Audience Award: TimeBook
    24. 29.
    25. 32. More activities… <ul><li>LOD animation </li></ul><ul><li>Operationalise some of the apps </li></ul><ul><li>Paper on the Business Models of Open Data for the Cultural Heritage Sector </li></ul>
    26. 33. <ul><li>CENL / EU screen/ Hispana </li></ul><ul><li>adopted DEA </li></ul>
    27. 34. <ul><li>CC0 will be applied as of </li></ul><ul><li>July 1st, 2012! </li></ul>
    28. 35. Thank you for your attention [email_address]