Coordination of digitisation mechanisms Brussels, 11 December 2001
e-Europe:
Coordination of
National Digitisation Policies & Programmes
First Meeting of the National Representatives Group
(an e-Europe Activity)
Report of a Formal Meeting
held at
Centre Albert Borschette
Brussels, Belgium. 11 December 2001.
Contents
1. Introduction & Objectives of the Brussels Meeting 3
2. Background to the Meeting 4
3. Presentations and Discussion 4
3.1. Introduction from the Chairs 4
3.2. National Representatives Group [ Terms of Reference] 6
3.3. National Policy Profiles 7
Summary of the National Profile Activity 9
3.4. Benchmarking 10
3.5. Quality Labelling -- BRUSSELS QUALITY FRAMEWORK 10
3.6. Metadata & Interoperability 11
4. Future Agenda: 12
4.1. Spanish Presidency Presentation of planned activities 12
5. Conclusions, Principles and Action 12
Coordination of National Digitisation Policies & Programmes
First Meeting of the National Representatives Group
11 December 2001, Brussels, Belgium
1. Introduction & Objectives of the Brussels Meeting
On the 11th of December 2001 the Belgian Presidency hosted the first meeting of the National Representatives Group (NRG) for the coordination of digitisation policies and programmes was held at the European Commission in Brussels. This meeting supported by the Cultural Heritage Applications Unit (Information Society DG, European Commission), brought together representatives and experts from the Member States. The NRG, proposed in the Lund Principles at a meeting held on the 4th of April 2001, became possible following the decision of the Ministers of Culture to endorse a resolution on "Culture in the knowledge society”. This resolution encourage the use of existing or new networks at European level to facilitate co-operation and exchange of information and good practice in the digitisation of cultural and scientific resources.
Under the Belgian Presidency resolutions on Culture in the knowledge society and on the role of culture in the development of the European Union had been adopted by the Culture Council (5 November 2001). An informal Council, at Bruges on the 4th and 5th of December 2001, supported initiatives to secure the visibility and diversity Europe’s cultural heritage and to enable citizens to obtain access through the use new technologies to these heritage assets.
This first meeting of the NRG was convened jointly by the Belgian Presidency and the Commission, was co-chaired by Mr Henry Ingberg (President of the Cultural Affairs Committee of the Council and Secretary General, Ministere de la Communauté Française), Mr Yves de Greef (Delegate General of the Communauté Française) and Bernard Smith (Head the Cultural Heritage Applications Unit of Directorate D of the Information Society DG at the Commission). Dr Seamus Ross, Director of Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute (HATII) at the University of Glasgow, acted as rapporteur. Fourteen national representatives from the Member States of the European Union, supported by fifteen experts, examined progress that had been made since Lund (see participants list, annex I). The one-day meeting began by reviewing and assessing the work that experts from the Member States had done at Brussels on the 17th of July[1]
2. Background to the Meeting
Participants in the Brussels meeting had to hand some background documentation to assist them in their deliberations:
¨ National Representatives Group: Terms of Reference.
¨ Criteres de Qualite des Sites Web Culturels: Le Cadre de Qualite de Bruxelles, Document de Reflexion[2]
¨ Expert Meeting on European Cultural on the Web, which is the report of the Brussels, 17 July 2001
¨ Reunion d’Experts sur la Coordination des Politiques et des Programmes de Numerisation, le 17 Juillet a Bruxelles: Declarations Finales et de Recommandations.[3]
¨ Copies of two resolutions agreed by the Council of the European Union on Brussels, 26 November 2001:
· Council Resolution on culture and the knowledge society
· Council Resolution on the role of culture in the development of the European Union
¨ Conclusions for NRG Workgroup on Benchmarking (tabled)
¨ Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Efforts to Leverage Existing Synergies in Digital Cultural Content Creation Programmes Worldwide (from Cultivate Interactive.)
¨ Copies of a Dossier containing papers from earlier meetings, including Lund were available.
3. Presentations and Discussion
3.1. Introduction from the Chairs
Mr Henry Ingberg (President of the Cultural Affairs Committee of the Council and Secretary General, Ministere de la Communauté Française) opened the meeting by welcoming all those present to the first meeting of the National Representatives Group (NRG). He charted the history of its establishment, thanked the Commission for its support in moving the issues forward, congratulated the Member States on the success of their collaborative activities so far, and reminded those present of Belgians commitment to progress in this area. The adoption of a resolution on culture and the knowledge society, which calls attention to the need to develop the digital content as a raw material to underpin European success in the knowledge society and economy.
The Mons seminar on Culture and the Internet was highlighted because it allowed us to see the wealth of projects and the quality of information that was becoming available in the networked environment. It highlighted the importance of co-ordination and allowed us to see the vast amount of work being done around the world. A further resolution adopted by the Council on the role of culture in the development of the European Union emphasized the diversity of cultures and the quintessential role of culture in the development of the European society. Culture must take on a political dimension; culture is a common value in Europe and we need to broaden awareness of our different cultures.
The activities during the Belgian Presidency confirmed the unanimous support that the Member States have given to further research in this area. There was widespread agreement that to ensure that culture on the Internet appears within a quality context it is essential that The Brussels Quality Framework should become a reality. Minerva, a network of Governmental organisations that will help people to implement the Lund action plan, was put forward on the 24th of October 2001. It will improve the digitisation of cultural content in Europe.
Henry Ingberg concluded by drawing the attention of experts to the fact that there was no necessary relationship between accessibility and use. The notion that access to culture was a logical consequence of using the Internet remains an unproven assumption. By analogy access to theatres, libraries and museums is completely open but not everyone goes there. Access must be accompanied by mechanisms to encourage people to adopt and use culture. This issue, which was given preliminary consideration at Bruges (4 & 5 December 2001), would become increasingly pressing in the future.
In his introduction on behalf of the Commission Bernard Smith reported that the Belgium Presidency had continued the work begun under the Swedish Presidency at Lund on practical and strategic work. He reminded us that Henry Ingberg identification of the Brussels Quality Framework (BFQ) reflected a widespread recognition of a gap in tools and practices that needed to be addressed. ‘As cultural information becomes more and more present on the Internet we are going to increasingly need to put in place a sense of quality if we are to build a sense of confidence and trust in the consumer.’ This meeting aimed to review progress under the Belgian Presidency in five key areas:
· the establishing of the National Representatives Group (NRG) and a review of its terms of reference;
· progress on making the national profiles visible on the web;
· establishing quality criteria for (Web) sites providing access to cultural resources, from which would develop the Brussels Quality Framework.
· progress on developing benchmarking as a mechanism to improve policies and programmes; and
· identification of standards and of guidelines in support of good practice and interoperability (e.g. metadata).
3.2. National Representatives Group [ Terms of Reference]
The Representatives reviewed the terms of reference for the National Representatives Group with the aim of ensuring that the Group would be enabled to fulfil both strategic and practical functions.
Before detailed discussion of the NRG could begin several Representatives felt that further information about the proposed Minerva network would be useful. The Minerva network, which would address item 1D of the Lund Action Plan, puts in place a co-ordination mechanism for digitisation activity. The Commission noted that Minerva had been well evaluated by independent experts in a normal evaluation programme under the Fifth Framework. There was a clear need to ensure that Minerva would be an open network that encouraged wide participation from actors across Europe. If all goes well it should be in a position to begin its work April 2002.
Representatives agreed that the NRG was independent of Minerva, although there would be a symbiotic relationship between the two Groups. There will need to be a relationship. Minerva has obligations and its means of working will need to be established. Management board or experts board on Minerva. It will need to present itself to NRG. There were other networks that could contribute to the work of NRG including: Pulman (libraries), Heirin (built heritage), and ERPANET (digital preservation). The NRG might generate working groups, some might be its own and others might be established in collaboration with other initiatives.
Yves De Greef described the key tasks of the NRG, pointing out that he hoped that it would not become excessively bureaucratic—‘there is nothing worse than a big institution that takes up lots of time and effort and delivers little slowly’. Representatives then turned their attention to a review the terms of reference. Several Member States expressed concern that they would have only one representative as this structure did not reflect the state of affairs within their country. Following discussion it was agreed that each Member State should have only one representative and, while more than one person might attend meetings from each Member State they should speak with as single voice. Member States were encouraged to put in place national structures to ensure that the representative spoke as a national voice; progress on the implementation of the Lund Principles would depend upon a bottom-up approach.
The Presidency would take responsibility for organising, chairing, and working to ensure that all the different initiatives were developed during their Presidency. There might be three or four meetings of workgroups to prepare for a single meeting of the NRG. Each Presidency would assume responsibility for prepare a concise report on activities and progress. A discussion of financial obligations involved led Representatives to agree that there was a need to balance impacts and desires against financial resources.
There was some debate about how the NRG could achieve effective legitimacy that was voiced in such questions as: How should the NRG be implemented and establish its mandate? How will the NRG gain identity and recognition? How do we ensure that Member States will push this forward? It was agreed that this would come if the Member States appointed recognised experts as their representatives and provided a voice for their communities through this individual. It was essential that the NRG Representatives be in contact with their national permanent representative on the Cultural Affairs Council (CAC), keep the Member States informed about the work of the NRG, seek regular feedback from their constituency at national level, and keep CAC informed about their work. Representatives noted that when something was on the agenda of CAC there was a great deal of positive activity in the Member States; the NRG should capitalise on this.
While Representatives agreed that members of CAC are distant from the activities in the Member States they recognised that when CAC was offered results they moved fast. The results of Lund were a factual statement and it received a lot of attention. To support the work of the NRG Member States need to have a mechanism for gaining access to local information. Representatives also agreed that it was essential that Member States recognised that being a member of NRG involved time and effort, and that encourage Representatives to invest in this activity.
Subject to some minor revisions of wording the meeting adopted the Terms of Reference. A document including these revisions was circulated to all those present before the close of the meeting. National Representatives asked the Commission to take the NRG forward by:
(1) working with Belgian and Spanish Presidencies to ensure that the work of the NRG was reported in CAC;
(2) writing to each of those present asking them to gain support form the highest level for the National Representatives Group. It was important that any agreement was given the appropriate political significance; this would be an important channel to push the visibility of the group;
(3) writing to the national permanent representatives on IST to inform them about the NRG and its work.
The Representatives agreed that all information and requests should go through official channels, such as the Ministry of Culture (or equivalent) in the Member States.
It was agreed that there was a need for the NRG to receive reports from the Member States on progress on implementation of the Lund Principles and the development of the strategic initiatives. Representatives would provide these in advance of future NRG meetings.
3.3. National Policy Profiles
The Chair reminded representatives of the survey of National Policies that had been undertaken in preparation for the Lund Meeting (4 April 2001) and that after the responses had been collated they had been returned to the respective Member States for them to review and make available on the web. Only a small number of countries had so far succeeded in posting this material on the web. At the same time the Commission had written to the Member States seeking examples of good practice, but to date no examples had been brought forward.
The NRG Representatives asked that the Commission forward the request for examples of best practice be forwarded to them again. They also felt that there would be benefit if they were each to indicate when their national profiles would be up on the web and what obstacles had prevented them going up earlier:
¨ Austria had not yet put the profiles up. This reflected the complexities of establishing an effective official published policy, and the involvement of three ministries (Culture, Technology, and Education) and a Secretary of State in the decision making process. There are policies in certain fields and there is agreement that a national policy is needed. As part of the process a conference in Vienna on Culture and Economy is planned and there is wide recognition that the benchmarking model should be adopted. There were likely to be three major projects supported during the next three years including a 20th century photography project involving the four main archives and the national library that will lead the way in digitisation, preservation, and e-commerce. As this project will involve the broadcasting sector, it should help develop mechanisms for enabling the public and private sectors to work together.