[OpenGLAM] OpenGLAM Principles v0.5 and FAQ

Tue May 7 06:41:44 UTC 2013

Dear all,

I would argue that the main difference between OpenGLAM and Open Cultuur Data are that OpenGLAM is a network or an umbrella for different activities related to open heritage, while Open Cultuur Data is a specific project with the aim of building a national network of people that want to form an open heritage 'ecosystem'. (A bit more can be found here: http://opencultuurdata.nl/about/) 

For us in the Netherlands this has proven to bea good model for bringing the cultural heritage sector a step forward in opening up their collections (data and content). This year we were very proud to also see a spin-off occur in Belgium (www.opencultuurdata.be). We've also shared our material and branding with them, and could maybe do the same for other countries, if they would be interested.

So you could also say that Open Cultuur Data is an example of an activity that falls under the larger OpenGLAM umbrella.

Best,

Maarten

Op 3 mei 2013, om 16:44 heeft Estermann Beat <beat.estermann at bfh.ch> het volgende geschreven:

> Dear all,
>  
> I endorse Maarten’s points.
>  
> I especially like the idea of aligning OpenGLAM principles with Open Culture Data principles.
>  
> By the way: Can anyone tell me the difference between OpenGLAM and Open Culture Data? – We might soon have to choose a “brand name” four our activities in this field in Switzerland soon. Any suggestions why we should choose one or the other?
>  
> Kind regards,
> Beat
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Maarten Brinkerink [mailto:mbrinkerink at beeldengeluid.nl] 
> Sent: Freitag, 26. April 2013 20:40
> To: Estermann Beat
> Cc: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] OpenGLAM Principles v0.5 and FAQ
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> Some suggestions:
>  
> The internet affords cultural heritage institutions a radical new opportunity to engage global audiences and make their collections more discoverable and connected than ever, allowing users not only to enjoy the riches of the world’s memory institutions, but also to contribute,participate and share.
>  
> Based on some conversations at the Digisam in Malmo and in particular the insights of Tim Sherratt, I would like to suggest to ad "meaningful" to "discoverable and connected" and "add value" to "contribute, participate and share".
>  
> 1. Where possible digital information about the works (metadata) should be released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver.
> ·         This promotes the maximum possible reuse of the data and allows your resources to become more discoverable
> Maybe this could even explicitly mention that this ensures compliance with big aggregators like indeed Europeana and DPLA.
>  
> 2. Try and keep digital representations of public domain works in the public domain by not adding new rights to them.
> ·         Digital representations of public domain works should be placed in the public domain via the use of the Public Domain Mark. This promotes the maximum possible reuse of the content
> I like that this is explicitly mentioned and realize now that we should mirror this with Open Cultuur Data (and we will!). Might I also suggest to refer to the Europeana PD Charter and/or COMMUNIA PD manifesto here?
>  
> 4. When publishing data use open file formats which are machine-readable.
>  
> Although I like this one, I think open formats and standards require a open heritage equivalent of a five star model, because - as mentioned by Sebastiaan in a previous response - there are many levels of openness within a digital delivery structure (open source tools/platforms, media formats, metadata standards, output formats, API's, etc.). I wouldn't want to put off smaller institutions that are for instance only able to open up in terms of licensing the content/data.
>  
> Then some general remarks:
>  
> - I believe it would be beneficial if we could investigate where we can and/or should mirror other principles. For instance, I would like this to be as much in line with 'our' Open Cultuur Data principles (www.opencultuurdata.nl/about/), which are:
>  
> 1. Open Culture Data is knowledge and information of cultural institutions, organisations or initiatives about their collections and/or works
> 2. Everyone can consult, use, spread and re-use Open Culture Data (through an open license or by making material available in the Public Domain).
> 3. Open Culture Data is available in a digital (standard) format that makes re-use possible.
> 4. The structure and possible applications of Open Culture Data are documented, for instance in a data blog
> 5. The provider of the Open Culture Data is prepared to answer questions about the data from interested parties and respects the efforts that it costs that the open data community invests in developing new applications.
>  
> What is IMHO missing from the current version is an explicit mention of the importance of good documentation. This is crucial for the facilitation of reuse and for reaping the benefits of opening up, namely, having others improve and build upon what you've made available.
>  
> - Apart from the principle about PD having to remain PD, I'm missing a statement about actual works in general. For instance using CC-BY/CC-BY-SA for in-copyright content that institutions are able to release themselves.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Maarten, also on behalf of my colleague Lotte
>  
> Op 26 apr. 2013, om 14:08 heeft Estermann Beat <beat.estermann at bfh.ch> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> Hi Sam,
>  
> I like it a lot more this way! Thanks a lot!
>  
> I guess you could start polishing grammar and style.
> Concretely, I would put all the principles in imperative form; put a period at the end of each complete sentence; and there are several minor grammatical issues here and there…
>  
> Kind regards,
> Beat
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: open-glam-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-glam-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Sam Leon
> Sent: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 17:42
> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: [OpenGLAM] OpenGLAM Principles v0.5 and FAQ
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Once again thanks to all those who commented on the last draft.
>  
> We've tried to address all of them in this next iteration and we hope this next version will spark a similar amount of debate and comment.
>  
> In brief we've decided to write a pre-amble and then a set of principles addressing legal and technical aspects to openness. The pre-amble and principles are still on the same page and haven't been separated.
>  
> We've also created an FAQ which addresses some of the points Heath made and we hope will cultural institutions and others who to OpenGLAM understand what it is we're working towards.
>  
> Here is the link to the Principles:
>  
> http://openglam.org/principles/
>  
> Here is a link to the FAQ:
>  
> http://openglam.org/faq/
>  
> Look forward to hearing what you all think!
>  
> Cheers,
> Sam
>  
> --
> Sam Leon
> Project Manager
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org/
> Skype: samedleon
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>  
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130507/53284c60/attachment-0001.html>