[euopendata] ICT-2010 networking session on gov linked data
Stefano.BERTOLO at ec.europa.eu
Stefano.BERTOLO at ec.europa.eu
Sun Feb 28 10:33:51 GMT 2010
I would advise against listing projects that have not been formaly awarded but are still under negotiation.
Also, I would be really careful not to create unhelpful group dynamics.
A few months ago I spent a day at an event on the future of the Semantic Web where more than two thirds of the presentations I attended were about existing projects funded by the Framework Programme.
This had the, in my opinion undesireable, effect that people concentrated more on showing their current family jewels than brainstorming on the design and forging on new jewels.
In my opinion, mentioning prominently existing funded projects (and hinting at soon to be funded ones) is productive only if someone who is *outside* these projects would be able to see:
-- what tools or resources she could obtain from such projects **in order to solve a concrete gov linked data problem**
-- what tools or resources she could contribute to such projects **in order to improve the project's effectiveness**
And to feel that she would be welcome to do so.
When I was child, my mother used to quote a sentence that parents used to tell children of *her* generation to make them behave:
"If you behave I'll take you downtown so you can watch the rich kids eating ice cream".
Those of you who (very deservedly) have received EU funding to carry out your work should understand that such funding very much looks and feels like ice cream in the minds of those who have *not* received it.
I should hope that the networking session under discussion will be more about how *everyone* in the session could be organised to get ice cream next time around than a description of the particular flavour people are (once again, deservedly) licking at the moment.
Stefano Bertolo, Ph.D. Project Officer
European Commission Information Society DG, Unit E2
Mail: EUFO 1/293 - rue Alcide de Gasperi - L-2920 Luxembourg
Office: Euroforum building - 10, rue Robert Stumper - L-2557 Luxembourg
Tel. +352.4301.37435 Fax. +352.4301.38099
stefano.bertolo at ec.europa.eu
DG INFSO/E2: http://cordis.europa.eu/info-management/
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those of
the European Commission
>From: euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>[mailto:euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 8:11 PM
>To: Sören Auer
>Cc: euopendata at lists.okfn.org
>Subject: Re: [euopendata] ICT-2010 networking session on gov
>On 2010-2-27 19:34 , Sören Auer wrote:
>> On 27.02.2010 5:50, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> You are completely right, but I would rather keep the title as
>>>> simple as possible. I added 'public' to the first mentioning of
>>>> governmental data in the text, to make it a little
>clearer. Maybe that's sufficient?
>>> Not sure, to be honest. The title is what sticks, that is
>why I think
>>> it would be better to have the 'Public' there...
>> Ok, lets see what others think and discuss this during the
>> call on 9th of March.
>> From my point of view "Public Governmental
>> Linked Data" sounds a little cumbersome. I also think if Linked Data
>> is finally used within and between governments for rather access
>> restricted data this is fine with me too.
>You are right that restricted data integration is also in the
>realm of things. But the emphasis of the moves in the US and
>in the UK is really on the public side and, I suspect, so is
>the EU's interest in the matter...
>Linking Public Governmental Data?
>Publishing and Interlinking Public Governmental Data? (A bit
>longish, but less cumbersome)
>>> To be explicitly listed as 'supported', which is something
>>> appear on, say, the conference's public documents, we have to know
>>> what this means, what it entails, what the obligations are.
>>> site above is perfectly fine, but the respective organizations have
>>> to agree with that before we list them. It is like putting a logo
>>> there for some sort of a sponsorship (actually, logos of such
>>> organization *might* appear on the public material!), we
>>> do it in the wild... I know that for W3C I have to get an agreement
>>> from our comm guys before a logo or such public statement could be
>>> made. (Do not misunderstand me: I am 99% sure that this
>will not be a
>>> problem in this case)
>>> That is why we have to agree among ourselves what this really mean
>>> and see if our home organizations is able to do that. The fact that
>>> we are part of this committee is a bit different and may
>not be enough...
>> Ok, so what's your suggestion? The additional information is
>> the selection panel, so it won't appear publicly. I want to
>> every project and organization, which is important to achieve the
>> objectives of the networking session and signalized some kind of
>> "informal" support in the sense of supporting the
>> to raise awareness, active participation in the networking
>> I think it would be a little overkill for this kind of event to
>> formalize this more, but feel free to make concrete suggestions, if
>> you think that I'm wrong.
>I told you I just may be pedantic...:-) And you are right that
>formalizing this more for this project is a bit over the top...
>But: if we list all the persons and their respective
>organizations that we collectively represent in this group
>(which you seem to suggest), that sounds like a fine idea. And
>it is also perfectly o.k. if, say, Michael Hasenblas does not
>only list DERI but also the LATC project he is coordinating.
>But then the text should not single out individual projects...
>Does the structure of the project proposal allow for such a
>list? If not, I guess we can simply link a page to the text.
>That may be the best.
>Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
More information about the euopendata