anneke zuiderwijk, keith jeffery, spiros mouzakitis: e-infrastructures for open data. a workshop...

FP7-‐INFRASTRUCTURES-‐2011-‐2, FP7-‐ICT-‐283700

CeDEM Workshop, Krems, Austria, 22 May 2013

E-infrastructures for Open Data

Anneke Zuiderwijk, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Keith Jeffery, euroCRIS, United Kingdom

Spiros Mouzakitis, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Agenda

0  Introduc.on – Anneke Zuiderwijk (10 min) 0  Presenta.on of open data infrastructures – Anneke Zuiderwijk

(10 min) 0  Background and architecture of ENGAGE open data

infrastructure – Keith Jeffery (15 min) 0  Demonstra.on of ENGAGE e-‐infrastructure – Anneke

Zuiderwijk (30 min) 0  Discussion – all (20 min)

Data providers Data users

6. Policy feedback analysis

5. Provide feedback on policies

5. Provide feedback on

data

7. Discuss feedback

8. Improve policy-‐making

1. Creating Data

2. Opening data

3. Finding data

4. Using data

Introduc.on – Open Data as a Process

Introduc.on -‐ Advantages Open Data Process (ODP)1

0  Poli.cal and social benefits: 0  Transparency 0  Obtaining new insights in the public sector 0  More par.cipa.on and self-‐empowerment of users

0  Economical 0  Economic growth 0  S.mula.ng innova.on 0  Counterac.ng unnecessary duplica.on of costs (public money)

0  Opera.onal and technical 0  Being able to scru.nize data

+ many more!

1 Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. In Vol. 29. Information Systems Management (pp. 258-268)

Introduc.on – Problem Statement

0  However, merely pu[ng data on the internet (step 1 and 2 of ODP) does not result in the realiza.on of these advantages2

0  Other steps in ODP are missing

0  Step 1 and 2 should be performed in such a way that the other steps (3-‐8) become possible Ø  Contextual informa.on and

linkage to other data is necessary

Data providers Data users

1. Creating Data

2. Opening data

3. Finding data

2 Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (to be published in 2013). Open data policies, their implementa.on and impact: A comparison framework. Government Informa-on Quarterly.

Introduc.on – Problem Statement

0  There is a need for e-‐infrastructures that aim at improving the ODP (current à ideal)

0  These infrastructures can s.mulate the realiza.on of the advantages of open data3,4

0  Examples of open data infrastructures: 0  European Commission Open data portal (open-‐data.europa.eu) 0  Na.onal Open data Portals

0  US Open Data Portal (data.gov) 0  UK Open Data Portal (data.gov.uk)

0  Local / Municipal Open Data Portals 0  + ENGAGE Open Data Infrastructure

3 Charalabidis, Y., Ntanos, E., & Lampathaki, F. (2011). An architectural framework for open governmental data for researchers and citizens. In M. Janssen, A. Macintosh, J. Scholl, E. Tambouris, M. Wimmer, H. d. Bruijn & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Electronic government and electronic participation joint proceedings of ongoing research and projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2011 (pp. 77-85). Delft 4 European_Union. (2010). Riding the wave: how Europe can gain form the rising tide of scientific data. Brussels.

Agenda





Presenta.on of open data infrastructures5

0  Inves.gate the open data infrastructures of: 0  European Union 0  Junar 0  ENGAGE

0  Examine the complementarity of these infrastructures concerning different characteris.cs

5 Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Parnia, A.: The complementarity of open data infrastructures: An analysis of functionalities 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2013), Quebec, Canada (2013)

European Union

ENGAGE

0  Iden.fied 35 elements of OD infrastructures

Elements of OD infrastructures5



0  All three infrastructures have similar basic funcKonaliKes for uploading and managing data, but all have different specific features to support the goals of the infrastructure. 0  Examples similar func.onali.es: downloading data, type of metadata provided,

data on various government levels 0  Examples different func.onali.es: visualiza.on tools, tools for monitoring data

use and feedback, tools for linking data, tools for user support, elabora.on environments

0  Differences originate from a focus on different target groups (different func.onality and data needs) and from different project scope: open-‐data.europa.eu is a single point of access to data from the EU bodies Junar is a cloud service for data collec.on and sharing ENGAGE is a pladorm and a community focussed on data cura.on



0  The difference in focus and provided func.onali.es suggests that for users these open data infrastructures complement each other.

0  Can be enhanced if all infrastructures would provide open interfaces to enable users to take advantage of the strengths of each infrastructure à connect infrastructures and exchange informa.on

0  At this moment, the ENGAGE open data infrastructure seems to be the most open system, as: 0  The publica.on and use of data in this infrastructure can be conducted by

anyone 0  Many tools that support all the steps in the open data process are provided 0  All func.onali.es are available for free


Agenda





Background and architecture of ENGAGE open data infrastructure 0  ENGAGE-‐project (FP7): An Infrastructure for Open, Linked

Governmental Data Provision towards Research Communi.es and Ci.zens (www.engage-‐project.eu)

0  Main goal: the development and use of a data infrastructure, incorpora.ng distributed and diverse public sector informa.on (PSI) resources. 0  Go beyond PSI (data.gov) sites in number of datasets, diversity of datasets,

quality of metadata

0  The vision of the ENGAGE infrastructure is to highlight, promote and enhance the re-‐use value of PSI Ø  by moving from low-‐structured, isolated, and difficult to find datasets

to highly-‐structured, easy-‐to-‐link, easy-‐to-‐process datasets.

0  Enable cross-‐country comparisons

Background and architecture of ENGAGE open data infrastructure

0  Data related services 0  Requests for dataset cura.on / conversion / enrichment (e.g. I am

looking for the elec.on results in Greece in XLS) 0  Requests for data verifica.on (e.g. do you think this dataset is valid?) 0  Improved data set search, also from external sources 0  Data set download/upload and simplified meta-‐data defini.on 0  Seamless interoperability with popular open data repositories for data

and metadata impor.ng (e.g. CKAN portals) 0  Display of dataset provenance informa.on 0  Freedom of Informa.on Requests (i.e. data set request from data

publishers such as public authori.es)

The situa.on today

0  Open government data / PSI / data.gov sites: 0  Limited number of datasets 0  Majority of sites just provide a ‘click to download’ list 0  Majority of files in pdf, next most popular xls or csv (Excel) 0  Some in RDF 0  Majority have very poor metadata – at best CKAN/DC

0  Publicly funded research datasets 0  Very many datasets 0  Portal sites provide commonly more than just a list

0  Advanced processing facili.es 0  Majority of files in structured (commonly rela.onal database) format 0  Commonly with associated or linked textual files for descrip.on /

explana.on 0  Majority have good metadata – although commonly detailed and

domain-‐specific


0  Bring together open government and publicly funded research dataset resources 0  With rich contextual metadata 0  From which generate discovery metadata 0  And which points to detailed, domain-‐specific metadata

0  Integrated tools 0  Google Refine 0  ScraperWiki 0  Data visualisa.on

0  Social networking services, such as: 0  Forma.on of end user groups/ communi.es 0  Comments and discussions on original or derived datasets 0  Approval/disapproval and ra.ng of datasets as a quality indicator 0  “Research Karma” to reward par.cipa.on and peer acceptance


1. DISCOVERY(DC, eGMS…)

2. CONTEXT(CERIF)

3. DETAIL(SUBJECT OR TOPIC SPECIFIC)

Generate

Point to

Linked open data

Formal Information Systems

Figure 1: The Three-layer Metadta Architecture

6 Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222-244.

Background and architecture of ENGAGE open data infrastructure7

Middleware API

ENGAGE UI

CERIF database

Database Connector

Java Middleware

Engage Metadata Back-‐end 2.0

Files

File Store API

Triplestore / RDF

CERIF to RDF

SPARQL API

CERIF to CKAN, eGMS, DCAT

CKAN, eGMS, DCAT export/API

Database 1Database 1Database

Database API

METADATA DATA

Detailed metadata

Discovery metadata

Contextual metadata

CKAN, eGMS, DCAT sources

CERIF XML

7 EuroCRIS. (2011). ENGAGE metadata back-end 2.0.

Agenda





Development plan

www.engagedata.eu

Development plan

Social media and ENGAGE

0  Use the ENGAGE pladorm for your open data needs! 0  Par.cipate in the ENGAGE-‐project and help us to improve the

open data infrastructure!

0  Register on the data pladorm: www.engagedata.eu

0  Join us on: 0  LinkedIn: ENGAGE eInfrastructures Project on Open Data

0  Facebook: engage.project

0  Twirer: engage_eu

0  Visit our project website: www.engage-‐project.eu

Agenda





Discussion

0  What is the value of exis.ng open data pladorms?

0  What is the value of ENGAGE? Advantages, disadvantages?

0  Which addi.onal features do (poten.al) users of open data want open data pladorms to have?

Ø  Feedback will be used for further development of and improvements on the ENGAGE open data infrastructure

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.engage-project.eu

Join Us

Thank you for your attention!