1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. European
Union

11. Junar

12. ENGAGE

13. 0 Iden.fied
35
elements
of
OD
infrastructures
Elements
of
OD
infrastructures5
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)

14. Presenta.on
of
open
data
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
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)

15. Presenta.on
of
open
data
infrastructures5
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
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)

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. Background
and
architecture
of
ENGAGE
open
data
infrastructure
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

21. Background
and
architecture
of
ENGAGE
open
data
infrastructure
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.

22. 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
1
Database
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.

23. 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)

24. Development
plan

25. www.engagedata.eu

75. Development
plan

76. 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

77. 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)

78. 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

79. a.m.g.zuiderwijk-vaneijk@tudelft.nl
keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
smouzakitis@epu.ntua.gr
http://www.engage-project.eu
Join Us
Thank you for your attention!