CEDEM 12, Day 1, Morning Sessions #cedem12

Some of our #cedem12 morning Sessions:

The necessity of metadata for open linked data and its contribution to policy analyses (Anneke Zuiderwijk, Keith Jeffery, Marijn Janssen)

Anneke Zuiderwijk from the University of Technology, The Netherlands started the session by introducing the topic like the gaining importance of Open governmental data and for an example the EU-Project Engage (www.engage-project.eu – „An Infrastructure for Open, Linked Governmental Data Provision towards Research Communities and Citizens“). The importance of Linked open data (LOD) was leaded to Metadata, which are part of the LOD-process.

Keith Jeffery talked afterwords about different models of using Data and more in detail about Metadata. As an example he introduced the project www.eurocris.org and the CERIF Datamodel. Asked for an „best practice example“ he recommended to search for „cristin + norway“ or „fris + flanders„.

Internal data monitoring for Open Government (Bernhard Krabina)

Bernhard Krabina talked about their work at the KDZ – Centre for Public Administration Research and their Enhancement of the Open Government Implementation Model by Lee/Kwak 2011 for Austrian open data implementations. (Internal Data Monitoring for public agencies to as decicion support for disclosing information to open data portals.) Because the model does not go into detail on what concrete measures should be taken by government agencies, KDZ started to extend with the first phase – the increasing data transparency. Therefore it’s necessary to identify high-value, high-impact data for the public and focus to start with on the top 20% of data that would most benefit the public. For the internal Data Monitoring for OGD KDZ suggested a metrics which helps identifying data that is suited to be released to the public (which you can find in the presentation below).

Last but noch least Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen presented the studie „Speaking Danish in Japan: Good practice lessons to learn and emulate“ – where Japan was compared with Denmark. There are huge cultural differences between these two countries in how they use their technical possibilities – for example: although in Japan 86.5% of the citizens have fiber-to-home access, only 13.2% of Japanese access government website or used an online service. In Denmark 86% of households have internet but only 14.6% have fiber-to-home access but  92% of companies and 67% of Danes use the internet to interact with government. There are also huge institutional differences. While Denmark focuses on cooperation, Japan acts mostly top down.

Ein Kommentar

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s