created by [email protected]
It takes months to publish
No control or direct feedback
Expert Hubs
IIIF
Many intermediaries and different paths (direct, national, domain, thematic) to Europeana
Data Model, DEA, et.
4 Europeana / TEL end DSI-2 4 Aggregating partners end of DSI-3
Moving to a singular shared infrastructure
The data would appear online (almost) instantly on Europeana, without mediators or complex data mapping
Publishing process is open and controlled by partners
Data partners can publish data without mediators
No need for complex data mapping in order publish
Europeana already has the largest distributed network of Memory Institutions (3500+)
All 3500+ current data partners and an estimated 60.000 cultural heritage institutions across Europe
Around 10 Domain aggregators and 30 national aggregators
Customers should have very clear insight into the quality evaluation of their data and the reach&use; of their data post-publication.
Customer satisfaction will be measured via user surveys on a bi-annual basis
Aggregators will focus much more on the relational aspects and less on maintaining a separate technical infrastructure
This is the main pivot of the model: GLAMS should have much more direct control over the publication of their data. This model aims at removing friction.
4 dedicated FTEs (PO + 2 developers EF, 1 developer PSNC)
3 dedicated FTEs (1 internal and 2 Semantika) until December 2016 (evaluation)
1 dedicated FTE from PSNC
Partners will be more engaged and committed. As a result they will share higher quality data (tier 2/3/4) and metadata.
Higher quality will result in higher visibility
Partners will feel more empowered and intrinsically engaged (instead of 'publish and forget')
By developing shared services (domain) aggregators will be able to lower their individual costs of development