This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the shutdown announcement for details.

• The Netherlands (Joris Pekel)
• OpenGLAM in the Netherlands:
• Opencultuurdata.nl
• Paid GLAMwiki coordinator
• Largest provider of open images to Europeana
• Number of key players such as Rijksmuseum, Institute for Sound & Vision, National Library
• Some funding from Ministry of Culture
• Often one department of such an institution very active, others not so much

• Goals of the survey:
• Data
• Mapping the sector
• Encourage institutions to think beyond their digital strategy
• Go beyond the usual suspects

• What we did so far: 
• Help develop the survey questions
• Pre-test with a number of institutions  
• People contacted very enthousiastic 
• Difficulty with getting contact details. Mostly our own networks

• FInland (Laura Sillanpää)
• Finnish context:
• Digitisation of cultural objects increased after 2008 because of Ministry of Education and Culture funding
• Finland still behind other European countries in terms of open cultural data
• Open cultural data master course in 2014 by OK Finland
• 
  
• Local objectives for the survey:
• Help spread awareness of open culture and cultural data in general
• Map actual situation in relation to open cultural data & learn what is needed
• Compare Finnish situation with other countries and learn from good practices
• 
  
• India (Subhashish Panigrahi)
• Situation in India:
• Wikimedia India chapter and WMF's India program working on first India GLAM project
• Good traction of image contribution through Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest
• Mass communication and other media institutes slowly taking interest in open audio library
• Digitization is a priority across government departments, with funding available
• Majority of GLAMs lack knowledge about open culture, need for outreach
• Relicensing and book digitization have gained public interest
• 
  
• Goals of the survey:
• Data
• Mapping the sector
• Encourage institutions to think beyond their digital strategy
• Show institutions what is there for them

• What we have done so far:
• Started filing Right to Information (RT) asking state government departments for lists of institutions
• Reached out to WMIN (Wikimedia India chapter) for help in creating a list
• Difficulty with getting people and contact details

• Right to Information - how did you come to the decision to go for that option? For the Netherlands we have not yet decided to do this
• This is the only option to get it. Most data is not available online, or not as machine-readable data. In this way you can get the data on paper and then retype it. 

• What to do if the museum associations etc. are not willing to share their contacts/the survey?  
• What to do if people say they are not allowed to share email addreses?
• In Switzerland, it was possible for people to share their details only for research purposes. Beat Estermann can provide agreements on this as a research institution. 

• Could we do data scraping?
• Only if the information is already there in a structured way (machine readable), but this information is randomly organised.

• Will there be an open call to ask for input, or, will we send an email message?
• Preferably we will contact people by email directly (through the survey tool), instead of an open call, because you get better responses. 
• We can send out reminder emails, and we can track if people have responded or not.
• For India, the survey will also be sent by post, because many people do not access their email
• How useful is it then to do a survey on digital data? It could be one of the things to filter on, whether people reply to email or to regular mail
• This is a good idea. The first approach is to send email, if people do not respond we will send the survey by post.

• What would be a minimum number of respondents to make it useful?
• A minimum of 500 responses would be good - probably a minimum of 1500 institutions to contact, based on the response rate for Switzerland.

• Will we have anonymous responses, or do we need institutions to fill in their details?
• Responses will be anonymous: through the tracking system we will split the contact details and the results. We will still have the contact details, so we could use that for a follow-up. There is a question at the end about whether they want to receive follow-up information or want to be contacted in the future.

• What is the procedure exactly for the results?
• We will gather the data centrally and produce one end report in English. There could be separate reports for countries or areas (like a Spanish report for Latin America), but this is up to the national teams. 

• What is the next step for the survey? Will it be a recurring effort or like an index?
• This is not decided on yet, there is an idea to run it every 2 years, but it depends on how the OpenGLAM situation will evolve as well. 

• What is the deadline for new countries to join?
• The pretest will be over by summer, so that we have a finalised version of the English questionnaire at the end of the summer. Then the translation into the local languages starts. The earliest possible start for the administration of the questionnaire is October. It takes 2 months to run the survey and send out reminders. A first slot would be October - November, then January - March. The final deadline would be end of March 2015.

• How much time did it take to gather contact details?
• This can take long, because umbrella organisations usually need to decide on this in board meeting, which do not happen often. So starting soon is essential.

• It could be interesting to get Canada on board, because their situation is similar to the US, but they are much smaller.