The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a National Data Infrastructure

Bern University of Applied Sciences | E-Government Institute
The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a
National Data Infrastructure
VSA-Zyklus «Archivpraxis Schweiz 2016», «Open Data & Portale – neue Wege der Vermittlung»
Beat Estermann, Zürich, 22-23 September 2016
Unless otherwise noted, the contents of this slide deck are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

Overview
▶ Towards a National Data Infrastructure (NDI) in
Switzerland
▶ OpenGLAM: Where do Swiss heritage institutions stand
in international comparison?
▶ From OpenGLAM towards a comprehensive data policy
for the heritage sector

Towards a National Data Infrastructure
(NDI) in Switzerland

▶ OGD Strategy for Switzerland 2014-2018 (April 2014)
▶ Release of official data (according to OGD principles)
▶ Coordinated publication and provision of official data
▶ Establishing an open-data culture
▶ “Digital” Switzerland Strategy (April 2016)
▶ A coherent and future-oriented data policy in Switzerland
▶ A national data infrastructure in Switzerland
▶ Swiss citizens have control over their own data
Strategic Foundations
“In the interest of good data governance, the provision of data as an infrastructure resource for free
use shall be improved. Like the existing geodata infrastructure, the construction of a national data
infrastructure shall help the open data principle permeate the entire administration, the research
sector and parts of the private sector.”
“To implement the fundamental right of an individual to exercise self-determination with regard to
information and in order to counter abuses and disparities, it is necessary to revise data protection
laws. It is also necessary, in close cooperation with all data processing bodies, to create mechanisms
and provide services which give individuals maximum control to allow or block personal and other
pertinent data relating to the individual concerned for use by third parties.”

▶ A NDI is a nationwide (distributed) technical infrastructure (portals, platforms,
services etc.) that allows the access to and exchange of data on the basis of
predefined rules.
▶ purpose: support data-driven value creation / help realize the potential
value of existing data
▶ no monolithic block
▶ does not exist in isolation
▶ provision is at least in part of public responsibility
What data does it comprise?
▶ Government data: YES, they are at the core!
▶ Other data: YES, but which data exactly requires further clarification
National Data Infrastructure: Tentative Definition

Four Perspectives of a National Data Infrastructure
Base Registers
authentic data
interoperability of data
sharing of government data
Open Data
open data formats
open access to data
free re-use of data
Big Data
linkage of data from a variety of sources
high volume and velocity of data
data analytics
My Data
ownership of personal data
access to personal data
sharing of personal data
National
Data Infrastructure
Components
Coordination
Collaboration

▶ Efficiency gains
(access to more data, standardized data, inter-organizational
exchange of data, and shared infrastructures)
▶ Better services for users
(new or improved services thanks to new insights or better integration
of information across organizational boundaries)
▶ Improved image of government agencies and public enterprises
For several stakeholder groups the purpose of a national data infrastructure still
needs clarification, particularly from the point of view of private companies.
Purpose of a National Data Infrastructure

Key Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder
Group
Role
Politics Create the necessary framework conditions
Issue a mandate to the public authorities
Public
Administration
Provide data
Foster the debate, play a coordinating role
Contribute to the setup of the technical infrastructure
Civil Society Promote the networking and the dialogue between different
stakeholders
Universities Provide data,
Provide infrastructure components
Public
Enterprises
Needs clarification
(Contribute to the setup of the technical infrastructure,
provide data, re-use data)
Private
Enterprises
Needs clarification
Where do heritage
institutions fit in?

OpenGLAM: Where do Swiss heritage
institutions stand in international comparison?
Selected Results of the OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey
Sources:
• Estermann, Beat (2015) Diffusion of Open Data and Crowdsourcing among Heritage
Institutions. Based on data from Finland, Poland, Switzerland, and The Netherlands. Paper
Presented at the EGPA 2015 Conference, held on 26-28 August 2015 in Toulouse, France.
• Estermann, Beat (2016) OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey – Measuring the Advancement of
Open Data / Open Content in the Heritage Sector. Paper presented at the International
Symposium on the Measurement of Digital Cultural Products, 9-11 May 2016, Montreal,
Canada. Final Draft.
http://survey.openglam.ch

Berner Fachhochschule | Haute école spécialisée bernoise | Bern University of Applied Sciences
1. Release digital information about the artefacts (metadata) into
the public domain using an appropriate legal tool such as the
Creative Commons Zero Waiver.
2. Keep digital representations of works for which copyright has
expired (public domain) in the public domain by not adding new
rights to them.
3. When publishing data make an explicit and robust statement of
your wishes and expectations with respect to reuse and repurposing
[…]
4. When publishing data use open file formats which are machine-
readable.
5. Opportunities to engage audiences in novel ways on the web
should be pursued.
Full version with examples: http://openglam.org/principles/
The 5 OpenGLAM Principles

Early Adopters
13.5%
Shareofinstitutions(%)
Innovators
2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority
34%
Laggards
16%
Research Questions
Where do heritage institutions stand with regard to…
…Open Data?
…Linked Data / Semantic Web?
…Digitization
…Open Content?
…Engaging Audiences on the Internet
…Collaborative Content Creation
What are the perceived risks and opportunities? (drivers vs. hindering factors)
What are the expected benefits?
What are the differences between different types of heritage institutions?
A further goal of the “OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey” are international comparisons:
In what ways does the situation in the different countries vary?
Awareness Evaluation AdoptionTrialInterest
Innovation Diffusion Model,
Everett Rogers, 1962

Bulgaria, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Ukraine, all institution types combined, N = 1030.
Cases with «stagnation» / «discontinuance» have been ignored.
Proportionofinstitutions(%)
Innovators
2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority
34%
Early Adopters
13.5%
Laggards
16%
Collaborative content creation
Social media
Open content
Digitization
Linked data
Open data
Advanced implementation
Adoption
Trial
Evaluation
Interest
No interest
Everett Roger’s Diffusion of
Innovation Model
Diffusion of Innovative Practices among Heritage Institutions

35%
6%
42%
13%
47%
17%
17%
6%
55%
19%
61%
15%
51%
23%
27%
10%
71%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Open data Linked data /
semantic web
Digitization Open content Social media Collaborative content
creation
Archives
Museums
Libraries
N = 1030
Adoption Rates According to Institution Type

26%
23%
18%
30%
38%
24% 28%
33% 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA
Open data
N = 1030
Adoption Rates – Country Comparison

11%
12%
4%
6%
10%
9%
6%
19%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Linked data / semantic web
N = 1030

42%
50%
44%
58%
71%
50%
38% 39% 39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Digitization
N = 1030

16%
17%
12%
15%
31%
12%
12%
17% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Open content
N = 1030

74%
66%
34%
74%
70%
71%
75%
58%
75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Social media
N = 1030

16%
19%
8%
26%
17%
9% 13%
11%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Collaborative content creation
N = 1030

Factors influencing the adoption of Internet-related practices

Digitization Today – Country Comparison
1%
17%
0%
30%
50%
10%
2%
6%
1%
7%
0% 0%
2%
10%
1%
10%
5%
10%
13%
50%
10%
50%
25%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Text based
resources (365)
Two-dimensional
visual resources
(357)
Archival resources
(281)
Three-dimensional
man-made
movable objects
(314)
Natural resources
(47)
Geography based
resources (119)
Time based
resources (220)
Percentage of resources already digitized by the average institution (median)
(N is indicated for each object type; the values for natural resources are not shown due to the small sample size)
Finland
Poland
Switzerland
The Netherlands

Digitization in 5 Years – Country Comparison
3%
45%
10%
50% 50%
30%
12%
30%
15%
35%
28%
20%
10%
50%
10%
50%
45%
50%50%
80%
25%
80%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Text based
resources (318)
Two-dimensional
visual resources
(317)
Archival resources
(251)
Three-dimensional
man-made movable
objects (279)
Natural resources
(39)
Geography based
resources (99)
Time based
resources (196)
Percentage of resources expected to be digitized in 5 years by the average institution (median)
Finland
Poland
Switzerland
The Netherlands

Open Content Today – Country Comparison
3%
5% 3%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of resources already made available as open content by the average institution (median)
(N is indicated for each object type; the values for natural resources are not shown due to the small sample size;
“0%” value tags have been suppressed)
Finland
Poland
Switzerland
The Netherlands

Open Content in 5 Years – Country Comparison
0%
5%
2%
5%
10%
1%
3%5%
8%
2%
10%
30%
0% 0%0%
5%
0%
5%
10%
0%
5%
15%
50%
20%
25%
18%
10%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of resources expected to be made available as open content in 5 years by the average institution
(median)
Finland
Poland
Switzerland
The Netherlands

Driving and Hindering Factors of Open Content and Crowdsourcing
Driving Factors1 Hindering Factors1
Open Content Improving the visibility of the institution
and its holdings
Making content more easily available for
existing users and attract new users
Facilitating networking among
institutions
Improving interactions with users
Doing a better job at fulfilling the
institution’s core mission
Extra time effort and expenses
(digitization, documentation, rights
clearance)
Feeling of loss of control
Wish to prevent commercial use of
content by third parties without due
compensation
Technical issues and insufficient staff
skills
Crowdsourcing Intention to get access to external
expertise and to have certain tasks
carried out by volunteers
Quest for an improved relationship with
users/visitors (trust, loyalty, public
ownership and responsibility)
Extensive preparation and follow-up
Difficulties to estimate the time scope;
low planning security; continuity of data
maintenance is not guaranteed
1 Factors which are of relevance for more than 50% of responding institutions

Average Size of Institution per Country
24.0
5.0
1.5
10.0
1.0
3.5
48.5
7.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Number of paid staff (median)
N = 1030
Valais: ca. 90 institutions
patrimoniales

Splendid Isolation?
Map of the „Europeana 280“-Campaign
(Source: Llywelyn2000, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

From OpenGLAM towards a
comprehensive data policy for the
heritage sector

▶ How to better connect our collections across institutional & national
boundaries?
• What role do base registers and shared ontologies play in the context of
heritage data?
▶ To what extent do we see our heritage data / content as infrastructrue
resource?
• What are the implications with regard to access and usage regimes? (e.g.
open data, open content, open access)
• What are the implications with regard to our IT architectures?
(e.g. separation of data and presentation layers)
▶ To what extent are we using the potential for online participation of users /
visitors?
▶ What are the implications of the mydata approach for heritage institutions?
▶ In what areas do we need more bottom-up initiatives?
In what areas more central coordination?
Food for Thought…

Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) without title (1923), Public Domain
Thank You for Your Attention!
Beat Estermann
Bern University of Applied Sciences
E-Government Institute
Contact: beat.estermann@bfh.ch

The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a National Data Infrastructure

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a National Data Infrastructure

Similar a The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a National Data Infrastructure (20)

Más de Beat Estermann

Más de Beat Estermann (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Role of Heritage Institutions in the Context of a National Data Infrastructure