This document discusses problems and solutions related to open data for the Marseille-Provence 2013 European Capital of Culture project. Key issues addressed include overcoming resistance to open data by stakeholders, establishing an architecture to avoid centralization and maintain control of data by partners, allowing third parties to profit from public data aggregation while preventing raw data sales, and focusing on static rather than real-time dynamic data to avoid liability concerns from data providers. The project aims to attract 10 million visitors through improved digital services enabled by open data.

1. Marseille-Provence 2013
Problems and solutions in a concrete
case of Open Data
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
Workshop
May 10-11, 2011
Hervé Rannou – ITEMS International

2. ©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
1-­‐
Background

3. Marseille
Provence
2013
European
Capital
of
Culture
◼ Aim
to
aAract
10
million
visitors.
◼ More
than
2.500
projects
have
applied
to
be
selected.
◼ All
stakeholders
together:
Ci-es
of
Marseille,
Aix,
Arles
…
General
Council
of
the
Bouches-­‐du-­‐Rhône,
Provence-­‐Alpes
-­‐Côtes-­‐d’Azur
Region),
Museum…
◼ Digital
services
have
rapidly
appeared
as
a
key
issue
in
order
to:
– help
visitors
to
visit
all
the
area
covered
by
the
events,
– provide
exhaus-ve
and
efficient
informa-on
on
transport,
tourism
…
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
has
appeared
as
a
key
issue
– To
foster
development
of
innova5ve
services
– To
facilitate
interoperability

4. Marseille
Provence
2013
European
Capital
of
Culture
◼ Pilot
:
Associa-on
Marseille
Provence
2013
◼ Assistance
funded
by
– The
Associa-on
– Region
Provence
Côtes
d’Azur
– ERDF
Funds
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011

5. ©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
2-­‐
Problems
ans
answers

6. 1-­‐
Resistance
◼ The
2013
event
which
is
a
local
challenge
changes
totally
the
approach
of
Open
Data.
◼
In
a
usual
Open
data
project,
all
stakeholders
ask
a
lot
of
ques-ons:
– why
open
data?
– Which
data?
– What
is
my
liability?
– What
are
the
constraints?
….
◼ All
the
ques-ons
are
there
but
they
are
beyond
the
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
“YES,
WE
ARE
IN”

7. 2-­‐
The
global
umbrella
◼ In
a
mul-
stakeholder
organisa-on,
an
Open
Data
ini-a-ve
cans
be
understood
as
a
centralized
approach
– Data
is
a
piece
of
power
– Risk
to
be
perceived
as
a
super
database
that
would
take
the
control
◼ That
is
very
important
to
define
a
architecture
that
answer
to
this
risk
◼ Op-on
proposed:
– Data
stays
where
it
is
– Each
partner
keeps
the
control
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
– The
Open
Data
pla_orm
does
not
decide
which
data
is
the
right
one
• …
but
it
provides
services
to
avoid
redundancies
– Architecture
based
on
API

8. 3-­‐
The
use
of
data
for
profit
◼ The
local
authori-es
or
local
agencies
have
ques-ons
regarding
the
use
of
public
data
for
profit
by
third
par-es
◼ Local
Authori-es
can
not
discriminates
among
type
of
users
◼ Third
par-es
do
not
have
any
interest
by
selling
raw
data
– They
can
aggregate
raw
data
with
others
services
and
that
is
why
they
can
get
profit
◼ That
is
the
same
with
a
road.
The
road
is
public
and
any
professional
ac-vity
use
the
roads
to
work
and
normally
to
make
profit
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
– Local
authori-es
try
to
foster
Economic
Development.
Open
Data
is
a
way
to
address
that
issue
◼ Op-on
proposed:
– Just
explain
to
people

9. 4-­‐
The
real
-me
control
◼ Some
public
data
refers
to
the
opera-on
of
process
like
transport.
◼ The
PSI
could
refer
to:
– sta-c
data
like
loca-on
of
sta-ons,
official
schedules
…
– Dynamic
data:
quality
of
service,
bus
late
…
◼ Transport
Operator
fear
that
we
could
request
real
-me
informa-on:
– Would
they
have
to
deliver
a
total
liable
informa-on
in
real
-me?
– Could
they
have
any
responsibility
if
they
do
not
transmit
the
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
informa-on?
…
◼ Op-on:
– Focus
on
Sta5c
Data

10. 5-­‐
The
key
role
of
geographical
data
◼ Need
to
have
a
global
and
exhaus-ve
geoloca-on
of
everything
◼ GoogleMaps
could
provide
some
informa-on
but
the
geodata
informa-on
coming
from
data
is
free
of
charge
for
personal
use
but
ambigui-es
remain
in
the
perspec-ve
of
reuse
of
them.
◼ The
open
data
pla_orm
appears
as
very
legi-mate
for
this
service.
Op-on:
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
◼
– Own
and
free
Geo
Database
has
to
be
the
core
of
the
Open
Data
plaMorm

11. 6-­‐
Lack
of
standards
◼ The
development
of
API
should
refer
to
standards
in
access
and
formats
:
– Culture,
Tourism
…
◼ The
project
has
to
face
at
the
end
to
a
large
panel
of
formats
defined
by
each
stakeholder.
◼ The
lack
of
standardisa-on
does
not
provide
a
reliable
environment
in
order
to
convince
stakeholder
to
adopt
these
ad-­‐hoc
standards.
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
◼ Op-on:
– XML
global
formats
for
webservices.
– Variety
of
connectors
to
allow
automa-c
access
– Repository
of
Data
including
their
own
Formats

12. 7-­‐Costs
◼ Cost
of
the
pla_orm
◼ Cost
of
opera-ons
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011

13. Open Data Garage
Marseille, 6th July
In partnership with Lift France, 7th-8th July
with Share-PSI.eu
Within the framework of Marseille Provence
2013, European Capital of Culture
©
ITEMS
Interna-onal
–
May
2011
www.opendatagarage.org
ITEMS
Interna-onal
Hervé
Rannou
herve.rannou@items.fr