Share-PSI Project meeting, Zagreb

<cjh> Chris_Harding present+

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Project is not over. We need to deliver D7.2 and the localised guides.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: I hope that the localised guides will reference not only the SharePSI BPs but the DWBP as well.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: We need to deliver at least 15 localised guides.

<danielpop> hi

<giorgia> hi there! :)

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: D7.1.1 - all BPs were put into a long document.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: D7.2 - final BPs document is the only document that reviewers will care about.

<Johann> giorgia: Hi!

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: It is Carola who accepts the revised D7.1.1.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: We received a set of comments from Carola.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: In the response we received some recommendations about marginal costs.

<danielpop> Me and Giorgia are on WebEx and can't hear you

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: However main source for developing the BPs are the outcomes of the worshops.

<giorgia> and we can see you either

<giorgia> can't*

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Shall we send D7.1.1 to the reviewers?

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: The question is strange. It should be Carola's decision.

<giorgia> Makx comment +1

<Jan_Kucera> Peter: Let Carola decide what she thinks best.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: There are pros and cons.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Pros are that reviewers will see the progress.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Downside is that they always impose more work on us.

<Jan_Kucera> Peter: Feedback must not necessarily by welcome but it might not be useless.

<Jan_Kucera> Georg: I would let Carola decide.

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: It would be illegal to communicate with the reviewers directly.

<Jan_Kucera> Chris: Could we have any control on wheter she sends the deliverable?

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: No

<giorgia> I agree with Makx we should have contacts with the project officer directly not with reviewers. She is her decision

<Jan_Kucera> Mateja: If we say yes on sending the document, will we receive any feedback?

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: That is my fear, that they will demand more work to be done.

<Jan_Kucera> Decision: We will respond saying that it is up to Carola to decide whether to send D7.1.1 to the reviewers.

<giorgia> +1

<danielpop> +1

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: The project website was updated.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Shall we include comments from Shimon? This would mean including something that did not result from our worshops.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: My fear that this will lead to flood of additional comments to include.

<Jan_Kucera> Georg: Let this to the end of the project.

<Jan_Kucera> Benedikt: We could be add a chapter "Future work" that will discuss the charging issue.

<Jan_Kucera> Jan: We might let Simon send us his feedback in a way that we can include his comments as lessons learned.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: It migh be an overkill.

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: If the feedback is in a form that we can include it we should do it because they will not be able to reject the BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: At the moment D7.1.1 is the most up to date version. I will update github repository and the web.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: All the future updates should be on github.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Next step is the selection process we need to undergo.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Jonahnn, could you talk about the BPs in development?

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: I worked on two BP candidates - see links.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: BP on data quality - updates to the original candidate BP from Valentina. Suggestions from Lorenzo also incorporated (old BP candidate).

<Johann> https://github.com/the42/share-psi/blob/bp_eqa/bp/eqa.md

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: We extended the BP with additional technical and organisational issues. We also extednded applicability to the whole life cycle.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: Because CSV is the most common open data format we included some links to the CSV on the web WG.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: The current version highlights the common problems of data quality.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: Emphasis on the governance framework is put

<danielpop> +1

<giorgia> +1

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Lets vote on the Johann's BP

<Jan_Kucera> https://github.com/the42/share-psi/blob/bp_eqa/bp/eqa.md accepted as SharePSI BP

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: We also have such BP in the DWBP.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: DWBP is very much technical oriented, SharePSI BP also reflects organisational aspects.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: SharePSI BP is targeted at CIOs.

<giorgia> during the Italian public consultation of DCAT-AP_IT we received a comment to extend the DCAT-AP_IT with properities defined in the Data quality vocabulary. The vocabulary seems still on going but we are planning to introduce this best practice in the Italian technical guidelines on open data

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: DWBP practice on data quality mentions use of the DQV but it is not mandatory.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: One thing is to describe the process.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: The BP should not be prescriptive.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: Your BP should be more informative and less prescriptive.

<Jan_Kucera> Neven: We had a presentation on this topic. Has this been incorporated?

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: In general there are many presentations that are not cited in the BPs. It is because noone can comprehend everything.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Please, inform the BP editors to include it.

<Jan_Kucera> James: I think that it is useful to specify some basic level that should be achieved. ODI follows this approach it's guidelines.

<danielpop> Have a look in D7.1.1 page 23 on. There is a huge table spanning several pages where deliverable editors tried to collect evidence from all workshops for each BP

<danielpop> @BP Editors: Please have a look and see if info from D7.1.1 can be picked up and added to BP description

<Jan_Kucera> Pekka: From my experience in Helsinki there is a need for such BP and for relevant guidelines.

<Jan_Kucera> Pekka: We need recommendation how to implement it.

<Jan_Kucera> Nobody object againts EGA being SharePSI BP

<Benedikt_Kaempgen> Candidate BPs: https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/BP_2

<Jan_Kucera> Valentina: BP about statistical data - feedback from Benedikt incorporated.

<Benedikt_Kaempgen> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Publishing_Statistical_Data_In_Linked_Data_Format

<Jan_Kucera> Valentina: The BP is about using RDF Data Cube for statistical data.

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: Such a BP is nice but at the moment it is not practical. Statisticians are not used to using data in RDF data cube.

<Jan_Kucera> Hannes: If somebody does it is a BP to me even though it is not applicable in every situation. You cannot deny that it is a good thing to link statistical data.

<Jan_Kucera> Valentina: We also have examples from Greece and Scotland. Even Eurostat publishes data in this format.

<Jan_Kucera> James: Publishing data in RDF seems like the best thing but I would make it more relaxed.

<giorgia> About the Italian national institute of statistics, Valentina is right. Our Institute publshed in LOD the census done a few years ago

<Jan_Kucera> Benedikt: I was also thinking about relaxed version of this BP.

<giorgia> In addition AgID worked with the Italian institute in order to publish official classifications in LOD and we used RDF Data Cube

<Jan_Kucera> Benedikt: We need to say that this BP is very ambicious.

<giorgia> here is a link to the LOD platform of our national institute http://datiopen.istat.it/

<Jan_Kucera> PeterW: We have good examples that it is possible to publish data using RDF Data Cube. Relaxing the BP might lead to a situation that no organisation pursues the ambicious goal.

<Jan_Kucera> Chris: Aren't we duplicating something that is in the DWBP?

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: We have a BP to use vocabularies. It is a very generic BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: Statistical data and DQV is a specialisation of this generic BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: Similar situation is in the speatial data domain.

<riccardoAlbertoni> \me @giorgia About Data Quality Vocabulary and its inclusion in DCAT-AP_IT please do not hesitate to contact me if you need help with Data quality vocabulary..

<Jan_Kucera> Valentina: We need to address specifics of various domains of data.

<giorgia> \me @riccardoAlbertoni great idea! Thanks for offering your support

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: It is 5star data if you have CSV data with CSV on the web metafile.

<Jan_Kucera> Makx: SDMX is not just tables. There is also a workflow.

<Jan_Kucera> Valentina: It would like to ask for examples.

<Jan_Kucera> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Publishing_Statistical_Data_In_Linked_Data_Format accepted as SharePSI BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: BP about open reasearch data.

<danielpop> @riccardoAlbertoni Thanks

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: There are open access mandates accross many countries.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: It is a domain specific BP such as Open transport data.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: PeterK says that it is implemented in Sweden (via e-mail).

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Isn't research data outside the PSI directive?

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: I do not think that research data are outside PSI.

<Andras_MIcsik> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Making_Research_Results_Open_For_The_Country

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Yes, it is part of PSI but it is no within the scope of the PSI directive.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: There are other documents such as parliament minutes. We need to catalogue it as well.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Andras, you need to update your BP to the latest BP structure and that we will put it to vote.

<Jan_Kucera> Mateja: Andras, could you provide examples of implementation?

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: Yes, I can provide examples.

<Jan_Kucera> Neven:

<Jan_Kucera> Neven: We need to answer who we are preparing the BPs for.

<Jan_Kucera> Neven: For example in the UK there is a massive infrastructure behind publication of scientific data.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: Proposed BP should be targeted at governments as an incentive to support publication of scientific data.

<Benedikt_Kaempgen> Andras, we had sessions on making available research data at our workshops: e.g., https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Krems/Scribe#re3data.org_-_Making_research_data_visible_and_discoverable.3B_Robert_Ulrich_.26_Hans-J.C3.BCrgen_Goebelbecker.2C_Karlsruher_Institute_of_Technology.3B_Michael_Witt.2C_Purdue_University.3B.2CHeinz_Pampel.2C_German_Research_Center_for_Geosciences and https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Krems/Scribe#Open_[CUT]

<Jan_Kucera> PeterW: Answer to Neven's question is that BPs are for anybody publishing under PSI directive.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: We had two sessions from Robert Ulrich about re3data.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: I had a presentation about the topic in Samos.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: We have the input to form that BP.

<cjh> "This has to be backed by law" - is this within our scope?

<Jan_Kucera> Benedikt: I think that based on the input from the workshop BP about scientific data is good to avoid loosing that information.

<Jan_Kucera> Bendikt: However shall we develop a BP for every kind of data?

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: It is good to have such a BP not to loose the infromatino from the workshop. But in a different format, perhaps.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: I am willing to describe it in different format. Should it be on the wiki?

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Yes, wiki is public.

<Jan_Kucera> Hannes: Even if scientif cata do not fall under the PSI directive it would be worth mentioning in the report.

<PWinstanley> s/scientifi cata/scientific data

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: I can imagine we can a section about related work in our next deliverable. But I do not want ot bury your work in a hundred page long document.

<Jan_Kucera> Andras: I will revise the BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: In Finland we have a programme about scientific data. I will provide you with a link. But it is a very big area.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: I think a specific section would be useful for this kind of BPs. Maybe even for the specific BPs such as statistical data.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: I will work with Andras on the BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: Holistic metrics BP.

<Johann> https://github.com/w3c/share-psi/blob/gh-pages/bp/hm.md

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: The title is maybe a bit unfortunate but I did not want to change it.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: The value needs to be evalueted in the whole environment.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: The BP recommends evaluation in the whole life cycle.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: The BP also provides arguments why it make sense to do holistic evaluation.

<Jan_Kucera> Johann: In Austria there is a programme called Evidence based policy-making which is in line with the BP idea.

<Jan_Kucera> Hannes: I support the BP

<Jan_Kucera> Hannes: How to implement section needs more examples how to practically implement the BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Hannes: I propose to be more precise in terms of the KPIs.

<Jan_Kucera> Mateja:

<Jan_Kucera> Mateja: In Slovenia we measure costs of sharing data between administrations, i.e. reduced costs due to data availability.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Mateja, could you provide information about your measurements to Johann and Hannes?

<Jan_Kucera> Mateja: I am not sure at the moment.

<Jan_Kucera> Jose: Our experience is short. But we use Google Analytics statistics.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: You need to know wher you are as a public sector, where you want to go and how much you can spent on it.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: The amount of money should be defined.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: Stages need to be defined and a roadmap for achieving them.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: Understanding the life cycle could help achieving the goal.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: In Finnland we do not have the metrics yet, but we are working on it.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: Questions such as what are the impacts in the economy are more difficult to answer.

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: Helli Koski said that there are examples of measurement.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: There is an impact to both users and public sector.

<james-smith> @ Johann: another ODI article on the economic impact of open data, that might be relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jeni-tennison/economic-impact-of-open-data_b_8434234.html

<Jan_Kucera> Anne: There are certainly expectations.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris: We need to know the process to find way to measure things.

<Jan_Kucera> Dino: We have a short questionnaire ready for survey aimed at understanding costs and benefits of openning up data.

<Jan_Kucera> Phil: Johann, you have at least three people who could provide you with examples.

<Johann> james-smith: Thank you, I think most of the references in there are already covered by http://theodi.org/the-value-of-open-data

<Jan_Kucera> Dino: I will help Johann with the BP.

<Jan_Kucera> Harris and Anne will also contribute

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: Open data could be used by the agencies themselves.

<Jan_Kucera> Laufer: In Brazil we have many agencies that all have their policis of sharing data.

<Jan_Kucera> Michiel: EU data portal published a study about open data value.

<Jan_Kucera> Pekka: A survey is going on at the moment.

<Johann> anybody who want to add stgh. to holistic metrics please send it to johann.hoechtl@donau-uni.ac.at

<Michiel_De_Keyzer> study on the EUOPendataportal on the value of open data http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/node/101 and http://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_creating_value_through_open_data_0.pdf

<Johann> But I will contact those who raised hands by email

<james-smith> @Johann: there are some more links I will add via PR as well.

<Harris> The process of opening data is different when we refer to different kinds of data (e.g. economical, geospatial etc.)

<Fatemeh> CBP on the Open Data Business Model https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Develop_Open_Data_Business_Model

<pekka> EDP is doing also a related survey at the moment: http://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/survey-benefits-open-data-use

<Fatemeh> CBP on the Open Data Value Disciplines https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Identify_Open_Data_Value_Discipline

<Martin_Alvarez> scribe: Martin_Alvarez

Continuation with the BPs discussion

<Fatemeh> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Develop_Open_Data_Business_Model

<phila> scribe: Martin_Alvarez

<Fatemeh> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Identify_Open_Data_Value_Discipline

Fatemeh: Two BPs to discuss: Develop Open Data Business models
... there are many examples of business models collected by a survey.

Phil: We have another one on supporting start-ups. Is this different?

Fatemeh: This is different. Business model should be for any kind of organization
... private/public/NGO, etc

Phil: Could you update the format?

Fatemeh: I’ll do it.
... Value discipline help you define the value proposition for the business model.

<Jan_Kucera> Latest version of the BPs by Fatemeh on business models are in the D7.1.1. They use the latest format

Fatemeh: Deirdree has some examples about how to implement value discipline.

Phil: Is this related to the PSI Directive?

Fatemeh: This is relevant to implement Open Data strategies.

<danielpop> Is this BP related to organizations that publish data, or more to reusers?

Fatemeh: Depending on the demmand. This could be useful to improve the performance and quality of datasets.
... Value discipline is prior than business model.

Harris: We need to understand the user needs before developing the business model in advance.

Geog: I don’t want the Public Administration take part of the definition of my business.

<Johann> Michiel_De_Keyzer: +1 for link of value on Open Data

Geog: The more information I have about the data published, the better decissions I’ll take.

<danielpop> +1

Mateja: BP are supposed to be for public bodies. There are no customers, there are citizens. The focus shouldn’t be on the business models.

James: You are refering to identify the ideal business model for organizations?

Fatemeh: Yes. Just to help them to identify the potential model.

Thanks Jan :-)

<james-smith> correction, I might have been unclear there! My clarification was that this refers to identifying the value discipline and business model for the publishing organisations, not the client organisations (data reusers). The publishing organisations do need to understand themselves in this way, to create a sustainable publishing process.

Phil: Should we have it as a BP?
... Having it as it is with some modifications?

Hannes: There is information in this that can be included in other BPs.
... But not included as stand alone BP.

Athina: Presenting the BP on geospatial information
... It could be a good idea including Andrea Perego when rewriting the BP.

<hannes> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Best_Practices/Use_simple_and_distributed_tools

Hannes: Presenting the BP on Use simple and distributed tools
... I presented the Pilot on Estonia during the workshop
... This could be useful for public agencies. I’ve tried to generalize this BP.
... My question is if we should have as stand alone BP.

Phil: Please add your evidences (links to your talks and projects) into Github to complement the BPs.

Deirdre: Should we do a distintion between PSI and Open Data, as well as access and reuse?

Georg: We should be focused on the implementation of the PSI Directive
... We are talking about PSI: information published and *requested*. It could be very useful in every localised guide.

Joseph: We use the transposition to combine FOI and the PSI directive. We should avoid two different channels to request the information.

Harris: The term should be Open Government Data, not Open Data (because it could be private)

<AndrasMicsik> In Hungary there is a service to collect data requests and providers: http://kimittud.atlatszo.hu/

<giorgia> I agree with Maks :)

Makx: Open Data is a way to make re-use easy, but not the only way to fulfill the Directive.

<Martin_Herzog> me too.

<Jan_Kucera> in the Czech Republic there is a service allowing a person to post a request to multiple public sector bodies and to tract the process: http://www.infoprovsechny.cz/

Peter: If FOI requests would have a common format, people could do interesting things with this kind of information.

<giorgia> exactly Makx

Makx: If it is Open data you don’t need to request it.

Phil: Georg, please have a look at the feedback BP.

<pekka> In Finland also service run by the activists including OKF FI (not gov) to make it easier for all parties to make and track FOI requests: https://tietopyynto.fi/

Phil: I’ll update the webpage and Github repository. (The repository is collaborative, so you can edit it)
... I want to understand what already exists in all your countries. What is in production, what is expected, etc.

<giorgia> I can say something about that for Italy

Phil: We need to know what is available (or will be) in your country. It’s a requirement.

Andras: We translated open data handbook 1 and 2 into Hungarian
... We plan to link to these best practices and translated them.

Phil: Did you modify the text (local laws, etc.)

Andras: Updated with the local events, and other aspects but we did’t adapt the legal aspects.

Phil: It’s what we would need. Having a document in Hungary that refers to the BPs.

Peter: Published Open data resource pack

<james-smith> @ PWinstanley: do you have a link for that document you could share?

<PWinstanley> http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/08/4093/0

<jens_klessmann> Here the link to the comparison Johann just mentioned, which we from Germany together with Johann created: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11vWYVjxj4ktMbNVb9Y4zs9L7E6lCCCM6DfcsIU8OYJY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

Johann: Austria. We opened a google spreadsheet to map published documents to BPs

<Livar_Bergheim> The tip Phil mentioned for linking to pages in PDFs. Add "#page=XX" (where XX is the page number) to the end of the URL to the PDF. I recommend testing the link to make sure you link to the correct page.

Johann: We don’t have a document to refer these BP.

Phil: It’s OK, we need to probe that what we are doing is valid.

Benedikt: Germany
... At least one good elaborated German guide, writen by Fraunhofer

<james-smith> @ PWinstanley: thanks :)

<danielpop> When talking about SHare-PSI BP, are we also covering Data on the Web BP?

Benedikt: We will analyse the German guide and see differences between these guidelines and the BPs.
... check the gap analysis.

(thanks, Peter)

scribe: This gap analyse will include links to the national study in Germany and the PSI BPs.

Martin: I totally support what Benedikt and Jens said.

Jens: What should be the scope of this analysis?

Phil: The goal should be a localised guide to take into account as starting point for an open data initiative.

Mateja: Slovenia
... Document on strategy of the government with priorities. The directive was implemented
... We are planing a guide for PB on how to implement open data in those organizations.
... We will include examples. It will be open for public consultation and the process will finish in May
... We will organise seminars for public bodies
... Also other promotional events.
... One of these events will be at the Faculty of Informatics.
... During the summer we will release a new version of the open data portal.

Athina: At least we would need to have an idea of what we want to have in the localised guides

<danielpop> thank you

Phil: responding to Daniel: yes, please do it.

<Livar_Bergheim> Situation in Norway: we will update our national guide this autumn, in include/cite the BPs - https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Localised_Guides#Country.2FCity:_Norway

Livar: In Norway we have a guide published this fall

<Livar_Bergheim> Martin_Alvarez: Clarification: We already have a guide - it will be updated autumn 2016.

James: UK. We will be supporting these works

Raj: The intention is having a document localised to our local scope.

Emma: We will include our examples and experiences from our community.

Jan: (Czech Republic) Trying to persuade a project to include links to our work.

<Jan_Kucera> You can find the standards developed by the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic here: http://opendata.gov.cz/

Pekka: (Finland) we will provide evidences of the implementation of the BPs.

Makx: We need to check if what we are doing is the thing the EC expects.

Chris: We need a localised version of the BP document for each country.

Makx: Translation is not enough. Legal aspects will be also adapted to the national situation.

Joseph: Malta: No national strategy on Open Data

<giorgia> guys, I lost you... I can't hear you anymore

Joseph: Our approach is go for data management internally, and after that go for open data

Giorgia, we are trying to fix it

<giorgia> seems fixed now

Dolores: We have a national guide in Spain
... We will link the document with the BPs

<jens_klessmann> Georgia, we turned the mic off and back on. The batteries might be low

<giorgia> ok, thanks for informing me. Now I can hear you again

Harris: (Greece) Every open data strategy has a section on PSI, so it could be great if we could have a link back to our BPs.

@@@: We have BPs on geo-data, also on open registries.

(I cannot hear him well, sorry)

(I cannot hear him, as well, sorry)

<giorgia> @Martin_Alvarez: in Italy we do have a national guideline that we are planning to update in the upcoming months. We are definitely gonna reuse some of the BPs (some others are already in out local guidelines)

<giorgia> we are planning also to link some of the BPs with our legislation

Uldis: We are working on a localised guide for Latvia

<pekka> Adding for the record what Anne said about Finland, there will be a national guideline published this spring which is the primary channel to include these BP:s.

<giorgia> now I can't hear you anymore, but I guess that it is a problem of of microphone battery

Uldis: We will check with the government what they have and see if there is possibility to link to the BPs.

Džiugas: In Lithuania there is a study (by PwC), we will try to add as many references to the BPs as we can

Hannes: I’m selecting the relevant BPs for Estonia and translating them.

<peterkrantz__standin> A bit late : National guide for publishing open government data in Sweden : http://www.vidareutnyttjande.se/

<giorgia> ok :)

Hannes: This will be published on the Web

<peterkrantz__standin> Continuing Sweden : it's published by the e-delegation, the Government task group on public administration digitisation.

Valentina: We don’t have a open data document from the Government. We are writing an open data handbook

<danielpop> Can't hear you

Valentina: The handbook is in Serbian

<jens_klessmann> * Giorgia and Daniel, we will search for new batteries for the mic during the brake

<giorgia> thanks

<Vjeran_Strahonja> We in Croatia have adopted national e-Croatia strategy where open data are promoted and well covered. But guidelines and a comprehensive gap analysis are still missing. The situation accross governmental bodie is different. For example, we have geo portal with open data and approach to individual records of some other registries, but BP on open data sets is missing

Michiel: Talking on Noel’s guidelines in Flemish

<danielpop> thanks

Chris: In the case of The Open Group, should we produce another version of the guidelines?

<danielpop> In Romania, the government published in 2015 the Guide for publishing open data

<danielpop> http://ogp.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GHID-DE-PUBLICARE-A-DATELOR-DESCHISE_martie-2015.pdf

Chris: Our approach might be more oriented to our community instead of the vision from the government side.

<cjh> Most useful localization contribution of OG would be material on use of Enterprise Architecture for enterprises using PSI.

Athina: From the international perspective, I see the INSPIRE directive, already transposed and localised
... Our joint group OGC-W3C can write a two-page document to explain the relation between the geo-world and the BP we publish

<cjh> Feedback is that this would be good line to pursue. Next step will be to issue call for participation by member companies in the activity.

Phil: Everyone in the room explained what have done or will do to localise the guides.

Makx: Some links from the Joinup to the localised guides

<phila> scribe: Livar_Bergheim

Timelines

d

phila: Recap - will send email to Carola about status, what's going on, she can decide on forwarding proposal.
... Final deliverable due 1 Aug. To discuss now: who is going to do what, by when.
... Proposal: best practices finalized by end of april - except of linking to localised guides.
... What to write in "lessons learned"

peter: anti-patterns

hannes: add an encouragement to submit lessions learned

phila: Possible way to do it - Link to a specific place on github
... Will set up a Github-issue or similar, and link to it from lessions learned.
... We need to make sure that all names are on D7.2. Will be used to assess involvement in the group. People must get credit.
... All of us need to look at the BPs. Check to see that the work you have done, sessions you ran etc. are included in the BPs.

<danielpop> yes, I'm here

<danielpop> OK

phila: Hope danielpop will continue his role - following up people to finish.
... Proposed timeline: April: BPs, May: survey, June: wrapping things up.

<danielpop> yes. fine

Links between localised guides and BPs to be done by june. Wrapping up of D.7.2 by July.

Makx: how critical is the survey?

phila: Important. To get answers - have to ask people, and remind them. No magic bullet.

???: could tie into the PSI-group-meeting in April. Get input on how to get answers to survey.

Future community-work? Ref. Wendy. Ongoing, not clear what will happen.

phila: Request for event to present BPs. No budget for that.

Jose: PSI-group meet twice each year, in Luxemburg.

Jose will present work in Malta. Will emphasize the good work that comes out from these workshop.

<peterkrantz__standin> quick question : is there a link to the survey questions anywhere? (sorry, lost it yesterday)

<Jan_Kucera> Questions discussed yesterday: https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/File:SharePSI_W3C_questions.docx

Livar_Bergheim / Difi has been asked to give a 15 minute presentation of the results of the Share-PSI-project.

PSI-group meeting is in Luxemburg 4-5 April.

<peterkrantz__standin> excellent - thanks @Jan_Kucera

phila: Other action items to discuss? Need to do periodic report. August.

Formal deadline is 1 August. Same date for D7.2 and periodic report.

phila: Yes, we will have more phone-conferences. Ca. every 3-4 weeks.

valentina: is there any interest / plans to answer the EU-call for open data projects?

<Benedikt_Kaempgen> Call: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/552-inso-1-2015.html

Jan_Kucera: Deadline (see link) is 2015.

valentina: Believe the same call will be repeated.

phila: No known call at the moment that will allow this group to continue.
... EDP has a budget to maintain communities.

Raj_mack: How to see open and closed data together.

phila: We have a good network and a mailing list.
... Feel free to use the mailing list to reach people, even when subjects (e.g. a call) is not relevant for everyone.

<giorgia> comment of phila +1

<giorgia> +1 Phil!

<danielpop> Thank you Phil!

phila: I said it last night; you make eachother look good. Carry on doing that. Thank you.

<danielpop> Good bye for now!

<giorgia> good bye for now! And thank you for your support in the remote connection!

phila: Please upload photos from the meeting to the wiki, or send to me if you can't edit the wiki.