Support Us

You are browsing the archive for Open GLAM.

We’re at SXSWi!

Sam Leon - March 8, 2013 in Open Data, Open GLAM

sxsw

We’re pleased to say that the Open Knowledge Foundation will be at SXSWi this year.

I’ll be on speaking on the Culture Hack panel alongside my colleagues from Europeana and the Digital Public Library of America talking about why libraries, galleries, archives and museums should open up their content and data and what’s being done to build a vibrant cultural commons around the digital public domain.

But I’ll also be there to meet you folk interested in other aspects of the Open Knowledge Foundation. Whether its open clinical trials or open spending data or some other aspect of the digital commons you’re interested in, I want to hear what you’re up to at SXSWi and if there’s something I should pop along to. I’d also like to hear from anyone interested in setting up regional activity in the US around open knowledge. Whether you’re thinking about starting an initiative to open up city bus timetables or visualising state spending data I’d love to hear what you’re up to and how the Open Knowledge Foundation can help.

I’ll be at the Idea Drop House on Saturday 9th March from 2pm with the Culture Hack panelists. More info is on the schedule here and the Culture Hack panel takes place on Monday 11th March at 11am. More info on the panel can be found here.

I’ll be Tweeting from @Noel_Mas and receiving emails on sam.leon@okfn.org – so let me know what’s going on!

First #OpenDataEDB of 2013

Ewan Klein - January 30, 2013 in Meetups, OKScotland, Open Data, Open GLAM, Open Government Data

The Edinburgh Open Data community started the year in fine style with a meet-up hosted by the National Library of Scotland on George IV Bridge. The turn-out was excellent, with a wide range of participants. As usual, we had a number of lightening talks.

The meet-up started with a welcome from Darryl Mead, Deputy National Librarian, who pointed out that openness was at the core of the NLS mission, and that work was underway to make information about the holdings easily accessible.

Amy Guy reported on her visit to the 1st International Open Data Dialog in Berlin, 5-6 December 2012. She was impressed by how successful the event was in demonstrating that Open Data is of practical value right now, rather than in some indeterminate future. Amy has a detailed blog post about the event.

Freda O’Byrne emphasised that small voluntary organisations (such as Play-Base,  Duddingston Field Group, and Scatterbox Films) can be hugely helped by access to the right kind of data, particularly when they need to write a case for further funding or when they are trying to network with other relevant organisations.

Recent developments in the approach to Open Data by the Scottish Government were described by Ben Plouviez (Head of Knowledge Information and Records Management). Some of the main challenges stem from cultural attitudes to data within the civil service; the cost of publishing open data on a sustainable basis; and the development of technical infrastructure such as URI sets. Areas where we can expect to see progress include increased sharing of data between different public institutions within Scotland; publishing dynamic datasets rather than isolated snapshots; and a better appreciation of the value of data analytics by managers within the Scottish public sector.

Expanding on Darryl’s introduction, Gill Hamilton described recent initiatives in Openness at NLS, including plans to appoint a Wikipedian in Residence, and the release of metadata for digital resources as Linked Open Data. Another issue under debate is whether it would be possible for NLS to provide open access to the digital resources themselves with loss of revenue.

Andy Wightman described current obstacles to answering the question “Who owns Scotland?“, highlighting the fact that members of the public are currently unable to view access information about land registration held by the Registers of Scotland without paying a fee. He had argued (unsuccessfully) during the course of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, that access should be free (fee income accounts for only 5.3% of the Register’s revenue.) The wider debate about land taxation and land reform is hampered by the inadequate public availability of data on landownership.

It seemed as though lots of new connections were being made during the networking parts of the event, and some new collaborations were being hatched, possibly including a pilot project involving Scotland’s iconic Forth Rail Bridge.

Elevation and Plan drawing of the Forth Bridge, published within the Westhofen article on the construction of the Forth Bridge in Engineering, 1890, ©RCAHMS


Elevation and Plan drawing of the Forth Bridge, 1890, ©RCAHMS

The level of activity around Open Data in Scotland is definitely on the rise. A lot of events and initiatives are being planned, including the following:

Digital Public Library of America recommends CC0

Joris Pekel - January 22, 2013 in Open GLAM, Open Standards, Public Domain

The following post is cross-posted from the OpenGLAM blog.

On the OpenGLAM blog we have previously written about the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), an initiative that has the goal to make the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity available, free of charge, to all. To achieve this goal the board of directors has recommended applying the CC0 public domain waiver to the metadata.

The Digital Public Library of America

The Digital Public Library of America

The vision of the DPLA is to provide one click access to many different resource types, with the initial focus on producing a resource that gives full text access to books in public domain, e.g. from Hathi Trust, the Internet Archive, and U.S and international research libraries. In order to create a true complete collection of available content and data, it is important that the DPLA makes its data interoperable with other datasets from initiatives and institutions all over the world. To make this work, the various datasets have to be compliant, both legally and technically.

Last week, the board of directors of the DPLA had a meeting and the metadata licensing policy was discussed.

The proposed policy is as follows:

  • The DPLA asserts that metadata are not copyrightable, and that applying a license to
    them is not necessary.
  • To the extent that the law determines a copyright interest exists, a CC0 license
    applies.
  • The DPLA asserts no new rights over metadata at the DPLA level.

This is also reflected in the about page of the DPLA

Metadata is a key part of the DPLA discovery framework; it describes content and resources in the DPLA, enables users to find them, and connects US holdings to holdings in other countries. The DPLA will aggregate existing library data and create new data; it will operate as part of a global linked data environment. All DPLA-created metadata will be made freely available in reusable form, except where doing so would violate personal privacy. All metadata contributed to or funded by the DPLA will be placed in the public domain.

Leaving Europe: a new life in America virtual exhibition

The decision to apply the CC0 Public Domain waiver to the metadata will greatly improve interoperability with Europeana, Europe’s equivalent of the DPLA. Now that more different initiatives start publishing digitised heritage and its metadata, interoperability becomes more and more important in order to create a linked web of cultural heritage data, instead of new data silos. By both choosing the CC0 Public Domain waiver, Europeana and the DPLA take a great a step forward in achieving their goal.

A first example of what can result out of this collaboration is the virtual exhibition “Leaving Europe: a new life in America” where the story of European immigrants is being presented, using material from both the US and Europe.

The DPLA will launch on April 18 this year in Boston.

Consequences, risks and side-effects of the license module “non-commercial use only”

Joris Pekel - January 8, 2013 in Featured, Open GLAM

In 2012, a group of German copyright experts released in collaboration with Wikimedia the German document “Folgen, Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Bedingung Nicht-Kommerziell – NC” (Consequences, Risks, and side-effects of the license module Non-Commercial – NC). In this document, they explain all consequences of choosing a CC license variant restricted to non- commercial use only (NC) and make clear why its usage is often not necessary and even a bad idea for artists and institutions.

The public licenses developed by Creative Commons (CC) are tools to make creative works available for free use under certain conditions. As rights holders have different needs and motives, CC offers six different license variants. Some of the most popular license variants include the condition that the licensed works must not be used commercially. This has far-reaching and often unintended consequences for the dissemination of the respective works and sometimes even entirely thwarts what the licensor wants to achieve by choosing a CC license.
This brochure wants to offer information on consequences, risks and side-effects of the restrictive CC license variants that don‘t allow commercial use


As often discussed on the OKFN blog, the Creative Commons NC-license can not be considered a true open license as it is not mutually compatible with for example, material with a CC Attribution-Sharealike (BY-SA) license.

After reading this document which was published under a cc-by license we decided that it was worth it to create an English version as well. We put out a request to the German OKFN volunteers and got a couple of responses. Within a few days the complete document was translated. Then, the original authors were consulted and they agreed to proofread the document. This was also a great opportunity to implement some of the comments they received from the German Wikimedia community after publishing. With the help of Wikimedia Deutschland, we were able to fit the document in the same design as the original.

And now in early 2013, we are very happy to announce the final version of the document translated to English.

Download “Consequences, Risks, and side-effects of the license module Non-Commercial – NC” here.

Again we want to thank the OKFN community so much for achieving this great publication. Special thanks goes out to Thomas Hirsch who translated the majority of the document.

Want to help spread Open Knowledge in your own language? Join the Task Force!

Why the German Digital Library should learn from Europeana

Joris Pekel - December 13, 2012 in Featured, Open GLAM

The full version of this article is available on the Open GLAM blog.

picture
Launch of the DDB. Jill Cousins, Hermann Parzinger, Elke Harjes-Ecker, Matthias Harbort (from left to right) – Photo: Julia Hoppen

On the 29th of November 2012, the beta version of the German Digital Library (DDB) was officially launched. After five years of preparation and discussions with a large number of cultural institutions, it was finally time to bring it to the public. Herman Parzinger, head of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, explained in the press-release:

“The goal of the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek (DDB) is to offer everyone unrestricted access to Germany’s cultural and scientific heritage, that is, access to millions of books, archived items, images, sculptures, pieces of music and other sound documents, as well as films and scores, from all over Germany”

To reach this goal, a lot of work needs to be done. At the moment, around 5.5 million metadata records can be found in the portal. Around 3 million come from a single institution, the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg. Currently 90 institutions provide data to the library and the three biggest organisations make up more than 80% of all records. Goal of the DBB is to include the metadata records of more than 30.000 German cultural institutions.

In many ways, the German Digital Library reminds of the Europeana project when it was launched in 2008. At that time, France was responsible for about 50% of all records in the Europeana portal and many countries were not present at all. In the past four years, Europeana has managed to include data from each EU country, and continues expanding it (see visualisation).

The interface of the DDB is very similar to Europeana as well. A simple search box combined with the possibility to filter the results in many different ways, for example by content provider, period, or location. As Europeana, the DDB is a search portal which links the user to the actual digitised object on the institutions webpage. They only host the metadata.

picture
Homepage of the German Digital Library

Unfortunately, one major difference with the current Europeana project is how the DDB deals with copyright. Europeana has recently released all of their metadata records under a CC0 public domain waiver, making all of their metadata records free to use and reuse by anybody for any purpose without any restrictions.

The German Digital Library is quite the opposite. Their Terms of Use state clearly that:

  1. The DDB and its data suppliers retain all copyright and other industrial property rights to the public, freely accessible (and free of charge) digital content, derivatives and metadata including layout, software and their content in line with the principle of „free access – rights reserved“.
  2. Any use of the digital content, derivatives and metadata for commercial purposes is hereby prohibited, unless approved by the title holder in individual cases.

These copyright restrictions make it very hard for users to do anything with the metadata from the DDB. Especially when the API is launched, it is practically impossible for developers to create something with it as they will constantly have to ask the hundreds of different institutions if it is allowed. When Europeana started, there was also no consensus how to deal with the rights of the aggregated metadata and it took them four years to solve this issue. Over the last couple of years, the European Union, Europeana itself, and many other organisations have released reports and documents that clearly outline the advantages of open data for cultural institutions, as well as for society and research.

It seems like a strange move that the DDB is so restrictive, especially as they are to become the official German aggregator to Europeana. Europeana has been very clear since last September that the rights of all the data provided have to be waived away by using the CC0 declaration. Furthermore, many objects from for example the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemburg can already be found on Europeana, under a free license.

With all of the world’s heritage is becoming available online, great new possibilities arise. Different collections can be connected and linked and institutions can enrich their own data with the use of others. The history of Germany can not only be found in German institutions, but all over the world. By combining these different collections, historians can create a much more sophisticated history and find new stories and insights. This can only be achieved if the licenses being used by the different institutions and aggregators allow this, and the DDB term of use clearly do not do this.

As the German Digital Library is still in a beta-version, much can change. They are a direct partner of Europeana so it seems very easy to learn from the experiences of Europeana and how decisions in the past about copyright have worked out for them. Europeana has shown that European institutions are willing to provide data that can be freely reused, why start the discussion all over again in Germany?

The Myth of European Term of Protection Harmonisation

Christina Angelopoulos - November 21, 2012 in Featured, Open GLAM, Public Domain, Public Domain Works, WG Public Domain

This blog post is based on Christina’s paper, “The Myth of European Term Harmonisation – 27 Public Domains for 27 Member States”. This is a shortened version of the post – the full version is available on the OpenGLAM blog.

Copyright is supposed to be a temporary right: once it has expired, works automatically fall into the public domain for free public access and enjoyment. The importance of this arrangement is especially essential today, in view of the opportunities that internet technologies offer for the online distribution and reuse of out-of-copyright works: electronic repositories of culture such as Europeana, Project Gutenberg or Google Books are currently
attempting to digitise and make available online out-of-copyright works, while modern
participatory culture means that even individual users can more easily share old works or
incorporate them into their own creative output.

Public domain calculators are technical tools to help determine when a work falls into the public domain. The idea is to provide a measure of legal certainty to cultural heritage institutions, as well as the average user, that they are not inadvertently infringing creators’ copyright, allowing them to confidently work with material for which copyright has expired and thus helping to sustain a vibrant, up-to-date and functional public domain.

As has been mentioned before on this blog, as part of the EuropeanaConnect project,
Kennisland and the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam
set about creating one such calculator, concentrating on the term of protection rules in Europe. With the final tool now ready and available online, below we shall lay out some of the main conclusions drawn during their building process on the intricacies and limitations of European term of protection rules.

Term Disharmonisation and its Causes

When does a work enter the public domain? In EU Member States, the answer to this question should at least be “at the same time” – the Term Directive, one of the first European copyright directives adopted, was intended to leave no room for national deviations from the harmonised European norm.

Nevertheless, careful examination of the Directive’s rules reveals that it has not entirely
succeeded in this objective. The way in which the rules laid down by the Directive have been
incorporated into national law has differed from Member State to Member State, leading
to divergences of up to fifty years for particular works! As a result, the composition of the
public domain differs from country to country, as works fall out of copyright on different
dates in different EU Member States: the European public domain contracts and expands
along the pattern set by national legislative quirks.

The construction of the Public Domain Calculators helped identify the following main sources
of legislative variability in this area:

1. Inconsistent Terms = Inconsistent Term

Inconsistency in substantive legal terms is rife, leading inevitably to inconsistency in term calculations. A work may qualify as a work of joint authorship in one jurisdiction, a collective work in another and
as a collection of two or more separate works in a third, producing totally different periods of protection. The European Commission has addressed this problem with the recent
amendment of the Term Directive in September 2011 for co-authored musical works, but has left the problem in other areas looming.

2. Exceptions to Harmonisation

The next problem is the array of explicit exceptions within the Term Directive. These occur in three areas: transitional provisions preserving longer terms of protection already running in a Member State (of which there are plenty);
moral rights, an area generally left untouched by European legislation; and related rights over subject matter originating from outside the EU.

3. Related Rights

The Term Directive limits itself to the related rights of performers, producers of
phonograms, broadcasting organisations and producers of first fixations of films. But
Member States are allowed to introduce or maintain other related rights whose term will be
determined exclusively by national law.

A variety of such rights can be found across the EU, from non-original photographs (Austria,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden) to the typographical arrangement of a
published edition (Greece, Ireland, Spain, UK), producing a maze of different rights each
with its own term of protection.

4. Incorrect Implementation

Finally, divergences between Member State rules might simply result from the incorrect
implementation of the Term Directive. Although this
is obviously a risk run with any harmonising attempt, the
complicated calculations, hierarchy of rules and transitional provisions of the Term Directive do not lend themselves to
smooth transposition.

Conclusion

The calculation of the term of protection ought to be a straightforward exercise that any
copyright layperson (or at least those with enough copyright knowledge to be able to
properly identify the applicable rights) should be able to confidently undertake. Yet this is far
from the case.

This effect was illustrated in the Public Domain Calculators by the need for separate
electronic tools, giving on occasion very different results, for each of the 30 jurisdictions
covered, including the 27, ostensibly harmonised, EU Member States. This effectively
illustrates the way in which the incomplete harmonisation of the term of protection increases
the complexity of the calculation process in Europe x27! The Calculators are as a result
accompanied by a broad disclaimer, explaining that they cannot replace the case-by-case
assessment by a legal expert, while it is also for the above reasons that the very concept of
automated calculation is warily approached by copyright experts.

But the problem lies not with the concept of electronic term of protection calculation
in itself, but with outdated, badly harmonised and obscure rules that fail to live up to
the requirements of the internet era, thus hampering end-users and cultural heritage
organisations from taking full avail of the new opportunities now technically available.
Certainly, the full harmonisation of European rules on the term of protection would not do
away with the difficulties created by the current, particularly convoluted, calculation process
– but it would go a very long way towards simplifying the requirements for rights clearance across the EU by replacing 27 sets of complicated rules with only one.

Readers are invited to give feedback on the Public Domain Calculator on the pd-discuss list.

The Digital Public Library of America moving forward

Kenny Whitebloom - November 6, 2012 in Bibliographic, External, Open Content, Open Data, Open GLAM

A fuller version of this post is available on the Open GLAM blog

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is an ambitious project to build a national digital library platform for the United States that will make the cultural and scientific record available, free to all Americans. Hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, the DPLA is an international community of over 1,200 volunteers and participants from public and research libraries, academia, all levels of government, publishing, cultural organizations, the creative community, and private industry devoted to building a free, open, and growing national resource.

Here’s an outline of some of the key developments in the DPLA planning initiative. For more information on the Digital Public Library of America, including ways in which you can participate, please visit http://dp.la.

Content

In the fall of 2012, the DPLA received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, and the Knight Foundation to support our Digital Hubs Pilot Project. This funding enabled us to develop the DPLA’s content infrastructure, including implementation of state and regional digital service pilot projects. Under the Hubs Pilot, the DPLA plans to connect existing state infrastructure to create a national system of state (or in some cases, regional) service hubs.

The service hubs identified for the pilot are:

  • Mountain West Digital Library (Utah, Nevada and Arizona)
  • Digital Commonwealth (Massachusetts)
  • Digital Library of Georgia
  • Kentucky Digital Library
  • Minnesota Digital Library
  • South Carolina Digital Library

In addition to these service hubs, organizations large digital collections that are going make their collections available via the DPLA will become content hubs. We have identified the National Archives and Records Administration, the Smithsonian Institute, and Harvard University as some of the first potential content hubs in the Digital Hubs Pilot Project.

Here’s our director for content, Emily Gore, to give you a full overview:

Technical Development

The technical development of the Digital Public Library of America is being conducted in a series of stages. The first stage (December 2011-April 2012) involved the initial development of a back-end metadata platform. The platform provides information and services openly and to all without restriction by way of open source code.

We’re now on stage two: integrating continued development of the back-end platform, complete with open APIs, with new work on a prototype front end. It’s important to note that this front-end will serve as a gesture toward the possibilities of a fully built-out DPLA, providing but one interface for users to interact with the millions of records contained in the DPLA platform.

Development of the back-end platform — conducted publicly, with all code published on GitHub under a GNU Affero General Public License — continues so that others can develop additional user interfaces and means of using the data and metadata in the DPLA over time, which continues to be a key design principle for the project overall.

Events

We’ve been hosting a whole load of events, from our large public events like the DPLA Midwest last month in Chicago, to smaller more intimate hackathons. These events have brought together a wide range of stakeholders — librarians, technologists, creators, students, government leaders, and others – and have proved exciting and fruitful moments in driving the project forward.

On November 8-9, 2012, the DPLA will convene its first “Appfest” Hackathon at the Chattanooga Public Library in Chattanooga, TN. The Appfest is an informal, open call for both ideas and functional examples of creative and engaging ways to use the content and metadata in the DPLA back-end platform. We’re looking for web and mobile apps, data visualization hacks, dashboard widgets that might spice up an end-user’s homepage, or a medley of all of these. There are no strict boundaries on the types of submissions accepted, except that they be open source. You can check out some of the apps that might be built at the upcoming hackathon on the Appfest wiki page.

The DPLA remains an extremely ambitious project, and we encourage anyone with an interest in open knowledge and the democratization of information to participate in one form or another. If you have any questions about the project or ways to get involved, please feel free to email me at kwhitebloom[at]cyber.law.harvard.edu.

The Revenge of the Yellow Milkmaid: Cultural Heritage Institutions open up dataset of 20m+ items

Sam Leon - September 17, 2012 in Featured, Free Culture, Open Data, Open GLAM

 

The following is a guest blog post by Harry Verwayen, Business Development Director at Europeana, Europe’s largest cultural heritage data repository.

Last week, on September 12 to be exact, we were proud to announce that Europeana released metadata for more than 20 million cultural heritage objects under a Creative Commons Zero Universal Public Domain Dedication.

This news is significant because it means that anyone can now use the data for any purpose – creative, educational, commercial – with no restrictions. It is by far the largest one-time dedication of cultural data to the Public Domain and we believe that this can offer a new boost to the knowledge economy, providing cultural institutions and digital entrepreneurs with opportunities to create innovative apps and games for tablets and smartphones and to create meaningful new web services. Releasing data from across the memory organisations of every EU country sets an important new international precedent, a decisive move away from the world of closed and controlled data.

Unsurprisingly, the news received warm support from the Open Data community. In the Guardian Datablog  last week, Jonathan Gray called this data release ‘a coup d’etat for advocates of open cultural data’. Vice-President of the European Commission, Neelie Kroes, tweeted: ‘World’s premier cultural dataset @EuropeanaEU just went #opendata! Over 20 million items. Big day 4 @creativecommons’.

This release was the result of hard work of Open Data advocates from around the globe, activists from the Europeana Network, and not in the least from our 2200 partners in Libraries, Museums and Archives who contribute data about digitised books, paintings, photographs, recordings and films to Europeana.

In a white paper that we published last year, ‘The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid’, co-authors Martijn Arnoldus from Kennisland and Peter Kaufman from Intelligent Television, addressed the release of open metadata from the perspective of the business model of the cultural institutions. Why does it make sense for them to open up their data? The study showed that this depends to a large extent to the role that metadata plays in the business model of the institution. By and large, all institutions agreed that the principle advantages of opening their metadata is that this will increase their relevance in the digital space, it will engage new users with their holdings, and perhaps most importantly, that it is in alignment with their mission to make our shared cultural heritage more accessible to society.

But by themselves these arguments were not in all cases sufficiently convincing to make the bold move to open the data. There is also a fear that the authenticity of the works would be jeopardised if made available for anyone to re-use without attribution, and a loss of potential income if all control would be given away. All understandable arguments from institutions who are increasingly under financial pressure. Nevertheless one could feel that the balance was tilting towards opening access.

An illustrating annecdote was provided by the Rijksmuseum. “The Milkmaid, one of Johannes Vermeer’s most famous pieces, depicts a scene of a woman quietly pouring milk into a bowl. During a survey the Rijksmuseum discovered that there were over 10,000 copies of the image on the internet—mostly poor, yellowish reproductions. As a result of all of these low-quality copies on the web, according to the Rijksmuseum, “people simply didn’t believe the postcards in our museum shop were showing the original painting. This was the trigger for us to put high-resolution images of the original work with open metadata on the web ourselves. Opening up our data is our best defence against the ‘Yellow Milkmaid’.” 

With the release of the records in our repository, we can say that the Milkmaid and her 20 million fellow original works get their revenge: alongside millions of copies, the authentic works are now findable and accessible for the public.

We can therefore conclude that the release of the metadata is a major step forward towards a ‘Cultural Commons’, a collectively owned space available for all to use and create new services on. But having the building blocks available doesn’t mean that the building is ready…. Now that the conditions for access to metadata have been met, we need to work together to reap the opportunities that we have all heralded for so long.

We will therefore continue to work with partners like Creative Commons, Open Knowledge Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation to make cultural and scientific data more accessible and to support a vibrant Public Domain. We will also work to pave the way for creative re-use by developers, providing the infrastructure for opening up opportunities to create new meaningful ways to access and interpret culture.

On Tuesday, coders and developers from all over Europe will do just that when they meet as part of the Open Heritage and Open Science streams of the festival for a joint hackday, using Europeana’s dataset which we have made available as Linked Data. This is the first time that hackers will have access to the full Europeana dataset for re-use, and I am excited to see what creative apps and mash-ups are developed. Previous hackdays have resulted in apps like Artspace that would, for example, allow Europeana collections to be made available in public places such as coffee shops, libraries, schools, and hotels, or allow you to create and share your personal online guides to art. Now that this huge cultural dataset is free for all to re-use, for any purpose, we can hope to see many more such applications becoming a reality, including commercial educational applications that have not been possible before now.

I very much look forward to seeing you in Helsinki this week to discuss how we can bring the opportunities of Open Data to full fruition!

#OpenDataEDB 3

Naomi Lillie - September 14, 2012 in Bibliographic, Events, Join us, Linked Open Data, Meetups, OKScotland, Open Data, Open GLAM, Open Government Data, Open Knowledge Foundation

Amidst the kerfuffle and cacophony of the Fringe Festival packing up for another year, the Edinburgh contingent came together again to meet, greet, present and argue all aspects of Open Data and Knowledge.

OKFN Meet-ups are friendly and informal evenings for people to get together to share and debate all areas of openness. Depending on the number of people on a given evening, we have presentations and/or round-table discussions about Open Knowledge and Open Data – from politics and philosophy to the practicalities of theory and practice. We have had two previous events (see here for the ‘launch’ write-up and here for the invitation to the second instalment); this time we were kindly hosted by the Informatics Forum, and the weather stayed fine enough to explore the roof terrace (complete with vegetable garden, gizmos to record wind-speed and weather, a view across the city to Arthur’s Seat and even a blue moon).

Around 20 of us gathered together and presentations were given by the following people:

  • James Baster – Open Tech Calendar: an introduction to this early-stage project to bring tech meet-ups together, talk about the different ways we are trying to be open and ask for feedback and help;
  • Ewan Klein – a short overview of business models for Open Data, including for government bodies;
  • Gordon Dunsire – library standards and linked data;
  • Gill Hamilton – National Library of Scotland’s perspective of library standards and open data;
  • Bob Kerr – State of the Map Scotland (see here for Bob’s featured OKFN blog post);
  • Naomi Lillie – OKFN as part of the Scottish Open effort.

What struck me overall was that everybody already knows each-other… As well as cross-over in the talks, I kept trying to introduce people who would exclaim, “Ah yes! How was the holiday / conference / wedding?” or similar. This was quite useful, though, as it emphasised the point I made in my talk: OKFN doesn’t need to start anything in Scotland, as efforts towards Open are already ongoing and to great effect, we just want to provide support and possibly a brand under which these activities can be coordinated and promoted. With this in mind, we are going to look into a Scotland OKFN group as soon as things settle down again after OKFest – keep your eyes open for updates to follow!

To keep up-to-date with #OpenDataEDB and similar events, with the above and other interesting folks, and with the emerging Scotland OKFN group:

JISC Open Biblio 2 project – final report

Naomi Lillie - August 23, 2012 in Bibliographic, OKF Projects, Open GLAM, WG Open Bibliographic Data, Working Groups

This is cross-posted from openbiblio.net.


Following on from the success of the first JISC Open Bibliography project we have now completed a further year of development and advocacy as part of the JISC Discovery programme.

Our stated aims at the beginning of the second year of development were to show our community (namely all those interested in furthering the cause of Open via bibliographic data, including: coders; academics; those with interest in supporting Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums; etc) what we are missing if we do not commit to Open Bibliography, and to show that Open Bibliography is a fundamental requirement of a community committed to discovery and dissemination of ideas. We intended to do this by demonstrating the value of carefully managed metadata collections of particular interest to individuals and small groups, thus realising the potential of the open access to large collections of metadata we now enjoy.

We have been successful overall in achieving our aims, and we present here a summary of our output to date (it may be useful to refer to this guide to terms).

Outputs

BibServer and FacetView

The BibServer open source software package enables individuals and small groups to present their bibliographic collections easily online. BibServer utilises elasticsearch in the background to index supplied records, and these are presented via the frontend using the FacetView javascript library. This use of javascript at the front end allows easy embedding of result displays on any web page.

BibSoup and more demonstrations

Our own version of BibServer is up and running at http://bibsoup.net, where we have seen over 100 users sharing more than 14000 records across over 60 collections. Some particularly interesting example collections include:

Additionally, we have created some niche instances of BibServer for solving specific problems – for example, check out http://malaria.bibsoup.net; here we have used BibServer to analyse and display collections specific to malaria researchers, as a demonstration of the extent of open access materials in the field. Further analysis allowed us to show where best to look for relevant materials that could be expected to be openly available, and to begin work on the concept of an Open Access Index for research.

Another example is the German National Bibliography, as provided by the German National Library, which is in progress (as explained by Adrian Pohl and Etienne Posthumus here). We have and are building similar collections for all other national bibliographies that we receive.

BibJSON

At http://bibjson.org we have produced a simple convention for presenting bibliographic records in JSON. This has seen good uptake so far, with additional use in the JISC TEXTUS project and in Total Impact, amongst others.

Pubcrawler

Pubcrawler collects bibliographic metadata, via parsers created for particular sites, and we have used it to create collections of articles. The full post provides more information.

datahub collections

We have continued to collect useful bibliographic collections throughout the year, and these along with all others discovered by the community can be found on the datahub in the bibliographic group.

Open Access / Bibliography advocacy videos and presentations

As part of a Sprint in January we recorded videos of the work we were doing and the roles we play in this project and wider biblio promotion; we also made a how-to for using BibServer, including feedback from a new user:

Setting up a Bibserver and Faceted Browsing (Mark MacGillivray) from Bibsoup Project on Vimeo.

Peter and Tom Murray-Rust’s video, made into a prezi, has proven useful in explaining the basics of the need for Open Bibliography and Open Access:

Community activities

The Open Biblio community have gathered for a number of different reasons over the duration of this project: the project team met in Cambridge and Edinburgh to plan work in Sprints; Edinburgh also played host to a couple of Meet-ups for the wider open community, as did London; and London hosted BiblioHack – a hackathon / workshop for established enthusasiasts as well as new faces, both with and without technical know-how.

These events – particularly BiblioHack – attracted people from all over the UK and Europe, and we were pleased that the work we are doing is gaining attention from similar projects world-wide.

Further collaborations

Lessons

Over the course of this project we have learnt that open source development provides great flexibility and power to do what we need to do, and open access in general frees us from many difficult constraints. There is now a lot of useful information available online for how to do open source and open access.
Whilst licensing remains an issue, it becomes clear that making everything publicly and freely available to the fullest extent possible is the simplest solution, causing no further complications down the line. See the open definition as well as our principles for more information.

We discovered during the BibJSON spec development that it must be clear whether a specification is centrally controlled, or more of a communal agreement on use. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method, however they are not compatible – although one may become the other. We took the communal agreement approach, as we found that in the early stages there was more value in exposing the spec to people as widely and openly as possible than in maintaining close control. Moving to a close control format requires specific and ongoing commitment.

Community building remains tricky and somewhat serendipitous. Just as word-of-mouth can enhance reputation, failure of certain communities can detrimentally impact other parts of the project. Again, the best solution is to ensure everything is as open as possible from the outset, thereby reducing the impact of any one particular failure.

Opportunities and Possibilities

Over the two years, the concept of open bibliography has gone from requiring justification to being an expectation; the value of making this metadata openly available to the public is now obvious, and getting such access is no longer so difficult; where access is not yet available, many groups are now moving toward making it available. And of course, there are now plenty tools to make good use of available metadata.

Future opportunities now lie in the more general field of Open Scholarship, where a default of Open Bibliography can be leveraged to great effect. For example, recent Open Access mandates by many UK funding councils (eg Finch Report) could be backed up by investigative checks on the accessibility of research outputs, supporting provision of an open access corpus of scholarly material.

We intend now to continue work in this wider context, and we will soon publicise our more specific ideas; we would appreciate contact with other groups interested in working further in this area.

Further information

For the original project overview, see http://openbiblio.net/p/jiscopenbib2; also, a full chronological listing of all our project posts is available at http://openbiblio.net/tag/jiscopenbib2/. The work package descriptions are available at http://openbiblio.net/p/jiscopenbib2/work-packages/, and links to posts relevant to each work package over the course of the project follow:

  • WP1 Participation with Discovery programme
  • WP2 Collaborate with partners to develop social and technical interoperability
  • WP3 Open Bibliography advocacy
  • WP4 Community support
  • WP5 Data acquisition
  • WP6 Software development
  • WP7 Beta deployment
  • WP8 Disruptive innovation
  • WP9 Project management (NB all posts about the project are relevant to this WP)
  • WP10 Preparation for service delivery

All software developed during this project is available on open source licence. All the data that was released during this project fell under OKD compliant licenses such as PDDL or CC0, depending on that chosen by the publisher. The content of our site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (all jurisdictions).

The project team would like to thank supporting staff at the Open Knowledge Foundation and Cambridge University Library, the OKF Open Bibliography working group and Open Access working group, Neil Wilson and the team at the British Library, and Andy McGregor and the rest of the team at JISC.

Get Updates