[epsi-coord] PSI Scoreboard

Ton Zijlstra ton.zijlstra at gmail.com
Sat May 14 10:59:41 BST 2011

Hi Tom,

in first sentence: replace "bunch of stuff" with "a number of things" or
"several things".

Content wise I think this is a good e-mail. Maybe some the legal indicators
is important to Juan/EC precisely because they are currently not yet
mandatory: if there are any countries already going further than the current
Directive, that is an important input for the Review, is it not?

Also I am wondering, what do we do about cases where even though clear
results are not there yet, but countries have officially stated the path
they want to take? For instance the Netherlands officially let the EC know
that they are moving towards a incremental-distribution-costs, no strings
attached approach to PSI re-use. Even though most likely the payment models
for Kadaster and others will be around for a number of years yet to come. So
the policy goals and practice are different. We are measuring practice,
which is fundamental, but are we leaving out intent completely? Most likely
the 'yeah but' reactions by MS will be of the form "yes but we really are
working towards this in 2015." Maybe not for points in the scoreboard, but
note that there are plans/clearly stated intentions as an aside? Just a

The practical indicators are good: measuring progress on the ground. One
things stands out for me, EC and nations are often too much disconnected
from small practical stuff, that they cannot even see it as signs of
progress. Bringing these indicators in changes perspectives. It may also be
why EC may have some difficulty in coming to terms with it.

Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu


On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Tom Kronenburg <tom.kronenburg at zenc.nl>wrote:

> Dear all, hereby my new text for an e-mail to Juan, please review. (BTW: I
> have also added his list of indicators.)
> Dear Juan,
> 14 days ago we e-mailed about a bunch of stuff, amongst others the
> PSI-Scoreboard that will feature on the new EPSI platform. In this e-mail
> i'd like to discuss the PSI Scoreboard.
> I have set up a new list of indicators.
> Legislative Indicators
>    - Has the Member state transpositioned the PSI directive into national
>    law and does the EC have no (0) infringement procedures against the Member
>    State regarding the PSI directive?
>    - Has the Member state implemented a marginal cost policy, providing a
>    clear framework that can be used to determine the price of information?
>    - Has the member state implemented a licensing framework that does not
>    feature restrictions on commercial or non-commercial re-use?
>    - Does the member state waive any Intellectual Property Rights for PSI
>    datasets?
>    - Has the member state implemented at least 1 redress procedures into
>    law on a national level?
> PSI Reuse Stimulation Indicators
>    - Open Data initiatives in at least C of the 50 largest cities in the
>    nation who have developed or stimulated development of B or more working
>    apps using Open Data aimed at improving democratic control.
>    - At least C news-outlets produce 20 or more news items based on data
>    journalism annually.
>    - At least D national or inter-regional events are held annually to
>    promote PSI Reuse.
>    - At least E websites aimed at Open Data and PSI reuse publish at least
>    weekly (average) on PSI reuse issues and have an active user base
>    (commenting, retweeting etc).
>    - At least F PSI-datasets, no more then 1 years old, are provided to
>    the public in standardized, machine readable formats.
> The indicators you send have been considered and implemented. I do however
> have a few questions on them:
> -  Why would you like to have the question on the PSI directive's
> transposition in here? All MS have implemented the directive? For now I have
> combined the indicator for transposition with the indicator for ongoing
> infringement procedures. I believe it would not be very good to 'punish' MS
> for past infringement procedures, as they have since bettered their ways.
> -  Is it already EU policy to have MS' implement a Marginal Cost Policy?
> - Is it already EU policy to have MS implement a licensing framework that
> does not feature restrictions on noncommercial and commercial reuse?
> - Is it already EU policy to have MS' waive all IPR for psi data?
> I would be more then happy to implement these indicators in the framework,
> but we have so far hesitated in doing so because we thought these specific
> choices had not been made yet.
> As far as your concerns about the Reuse-stimulation indicators, i do
> believe that most of them are part of the indicators we propose here. Others
> (such as the indicator for teaching materials) we don't like to put in,
> because it is more of a proxy for reuse activity then an indicator measuring
> activity. We focus now on: Local initiatives and apps, Data Journalism,
> Events, Websites with PSI-news and Published Datasets. We could switch the
> datajournalism indicator for something like commercial activity if you like!
> I really like to limit the set of indicators to 10. The previous PSI
> scoreboard had approximately 60 or so, and it was very confusing for both
> MS, companies and citizens trying to analyse where their own country stood.
>  Therefore we really try to keep the indicator set concise. We believe that
> focussing on these 10 indicators would make the scoreboard much more usable
> and also
> We also would like to value each indicator in the same way. All will
> therefore be valued as 1/10th of the total possible score.
> I have added the total working document again, as i have also added to the
> set of principles.
> For most indicators, we will maintain a small list of links that 'prove'
> whether or not the MS earns the indicator's points. We are planning on
> building an application to showcase the indicators, the lists with links and
> the total scores in a very attractive looking web environment. We have given
> the contractor the demand that the look and feel of the website should be
> like the look-and-feel of the app with Europe's energy Data. We will give
> them final go for building once we have concluded this discussion on what
> the indicators should be. Therefore we would love it if you could respond to
> this mail somewhere next week.
> Kind regards, Tom
>   *Tom Kronenburg
> *
> *Zenc | Focus op oplossingen
> *Alexanderstraat 18
> 2514 JM Den Haag
> KvK:  27190312
> Tel:  +31 70 3626944 of +31 6 55778353
> Fax:  +31 70 3921835
> tom.kronenburg at zenc.nl
> www.zenc.nl
> *
> *
>        *
> *
> _______________________________________________
> epsi-coord mailing list
> epsi-coord at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/epsi-coord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/epsi-coord/attachments/20110514/f86b9839/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the epsi-coord mailing list