Fwd: Legal-Socioecon Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

I normally do not forward the entire list email, however, this one is
loaded with goodies for you analyst types.

Enjoy
Tracey


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Subject: Legal-Socioecon Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6
To: [hidden email]


Send Legal-Socioecon mailing list submissions to
       [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
       [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Legal-Socioecon digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Revising the EU's PSI re-use Directive (Roger Longhorn)
  2. Assessment of the different models of supply and charging for
     PSI reports (Roger Longhorn)
  3. Review of Recent Studies on PSI Re-use and        Related Market
     Developments (Roger Longhorn)
  4. Re: Users as essential contributors to spatial
     cyberinfrastructures (Yola Georgiadou)
  5. Re: Users as essential contributors to    spatial
     cyberinfrastructures (Francis Harvey)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:09:50 +0100
From: Roger Longhorn <[hidden email]>
To: GSDI L&SE Committee <[hidden email]>
Subject: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Revising the EU's PSI re-use Directive
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Hi all,

 From the LAPSI project today - considering that (a) all government
geospatial data is first and foremost PSI (Public Sector Information)
and (b) the many debates and pilots on-going with open access to geo
PSI, this may be of interest, at least to our EU members.

<begins>

This morning Neelie Kroes announced in a press conference the future of
Directive 2003/98/EC on PSI Re-Use.

Please find the entire speech here:
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?type=ebsvod&sid=192681
<http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?type=ebsvod&sid=192681>

Please find complementary material of essence here:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm

among which you find:

- A survey on existing findings on the economic impact of public sector
information conducted by the European Commission in 2011 (Vickery study)
the overall direct and indirect economic gains are estimated at ???140bn
throughout the EU. Increase in the re-use of PSI generates new
businesses and jobs and provides consumers with more choice and more
value for money;

- A Communication on Open Data (provisional version);

- A proposal for a revision of the Directive (provisional version);

- A proposal for a revision of the Commission's rules on access to the
information it holds (provisional version).

Kind Regards,

Cristiana Sappa
Project Manager, LAPSI, www.lapsi-project.eu, and EVPSI, www.evpsi.org
Postdoctoral Researcher, Torino Law School
Research Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society, http://nexa.polito.it

<ends>

One of the objects of the LAPSI project and related projects such as
ePSInet and ePSInet+ are/were to collect information to inform the
European Commission about potential changes needed for the 2003 PSI
re-use Directive, for which provision is made in the original Directive.
The three new documents refereed to above concerning such revision and
the Open Data draft Communication, are available from the link provided
in all EU official languages.

Kind regards

Roger Longhorn
[hidden email]


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:21:14 +0100
From: Roger Longhorn <[hidden email]>
To: GSDI L&SE Committee <[hidden email]>
Subject: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Assessment of the different models of
       supply and charging for PSI reports
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

And related to my last post -

12 December - The "*Assessment of the different models of supply and
charging for public sector information*" (SMART 2010/0046) study has
been finalised and the full report (403 pages) and exec sum (86 pages)
are available.

See
http://www.sdimag.com/pricing-public-sector-information-new-report-out.html

Kind regards

Roger Longhorn
[hidden email]
vice-Chair, Communications, GSDI Assoc. Outreach & Membership Committee





------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:29:54 +0100
From: Roger Longhorn <[hidden email]>
To: GSDI L&SE Committee <[hidden email]>
Subject: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Review of Recent Studies on PSI Re-use
       and     Related Market Developments
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

and from the 2011 Vickery report on "Review of Recent Studies on PSI
Re-use and Related Market Developments" - at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/report/psi_final_version_formatted.docx

<extract from intro>

?This literature review looks at *PSI market size and* *impacts
*following the widely cited estimates in the *MEPSIR study (2006)*.
MEPSIRconcluded that the direct PSI re-use market in 2006 for the EU25
plus Norway was worth *EUR 27 billion*.

?On the basis of more recent studies the narrowly defined *EU27 direct
PSI re-use market* was of the order of *EUR 28 billion in 2008.*All
studies show relatively rapid growth in PSI-related markets, and
assuming annual growth of 7%, the direct PSI-related market would have
been *around EUR 32 billion in 2010*.Considering re-use activities in
domains not included in the studies analysed in this report (for
example, where re-use is not a principal activity, or in government and
research activities) *the market value of direct PSI re-use (the
economic ?footprint?) is undoubtedly larger.*

?PSI-related information can be used in a very wide range of direct and
indirect applications across the economy. The*aggregate direct and
indirect economic impacts from PSI applications and use across the whole
EU27 economy are estimated to be of the order of EUR 140 billion
annually*.**

?The above estimates of direct and indirect PSI re-use are based on
*business as usual*, but other analysis suggests that if *PSI policies
were open, with easy access for free or marginal cost of distribution,
direct PSI use and re-use activities could increase by up to EUR 40
billion for the EU27*.**

?*With easier access, improved* *infrastructure and lower barriers,
**aggregate direct and indirect economic benefits for the whole EU27
economy could have been of the order ofEUR 200 billion (1.7% of GDP) in
2008.*

?Thus it is clear that new applications and uses in a wide variety of
goods and services and future innovations associated with easier access
to PSI are more important than the direct PSI market, and emerging
second-order uses can be expected to add further economic and social
benefits to the EU27 economy. **

?Studies on individual PSI reuse sectors suggest that removing current
barriers to access and improving the underlying infrastructure could
achieve considerable gains. In *the geospatial sector, economic benefits
could be increased by some 10-40% by improving access, data standards,
and building skills and knowledge*. Productivity gains from geospatial
applications in local government could double over the next 5 years if
better policies were adopted. Large new markets could also develop in
financial, energy and construction sectors if access to information were
improved.

?*In terms of efficiency gains* in existing operations, *improving
accessibility of information necessary for obligatory environmental
impact assessments could potentially reduce EU27 costs by 20% or around
EUR 2 billion per year*, *open access to R&D results could result in
recurring gains of around EUR 6 billion per year*, and *if European
citizens each saved as little as 2 hours per year* by more rapid and
comprehensive access to public information, *this would be worth at
least EUR 1.4 billion per year*.

?In comparison, *direct revenues to governments from PSI are relatively
low* and are much lower than the estimated benefits from access to PSI.
*EU27 government revenues at the upper end of estimates are of the order
of EUR* *1.4-3.4 billion *based on revenues in the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom respectively. However, these two countries have been
relatively effective in collecting revenues, and total revenues for the
EU27 are likely to be considerably lower, with sales revenues usually
less than 1% of agency budgets and a maximum of one-fifth of budgets in
a few cases.

?Ther*e is emerging evidence that improving access and lowering prices
dramatically have positive impacts on the number of users and
development of new uses. At the same time, changing access and pricing
policies provide opportunities for reviewing the role of the public task
in generating and distributing **PSI and implementing other changes to
make PSI more accessible*.

?On the other hand, research suggests that where pricing is lowered to
the marginal cost of distribution, *government agency revenues foregone
from direct sales of PSI could be provided via replacement funding from
central government*, mixed with ?updater? funding models, where, for
example, businesses pay a higher levy to update their data in business
registers. The *extra funding involved is estimated to be very small
compared with the budgets of public sector bodies providing public
sector information* and is even smaller when compared with additional
benefits from greater PSI-related economic activity. Research also
suggests that the number of users may increase dramatically, increasing
marginal cost pricing revenues.

<end extract>

Kind regards

Roger Longhorn
[hidden email]
vice-Chair, Communications, GSDI Assoc Outreach & Membership Committee


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:30:28 +0100
From: Yola Georgiadou <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: SDI-legal-socioecon <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to
       spatial cyberinfrastructures
Message-ID:
       <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Roger, thanks for the as always thoughtful comments.

It is intriguing that after 20 years we have not stabilized to one
term, instead we still have GII, SII, SDI, GDI etc.On the contrary,
the term GIS has never been contested. Why? I don't know.

What I think is cool about mainstreaming ourselves into the
cyberinfrastructure discourse, is first, that we avoid the
data/information/knowledge conundrum and retain the spatial as a
qualifier for cyberinfrastructure. They are BULL we are REDBULL, and
that is easy to remember for all parties. Second, cyberinfrastructures
are about science and not government. We as scientists have implicit
and tacit knowledge of science, we have always been science's
producers and users, and thus may be more successful in
understanding/modelling/designing cyberinfrastructures, than SDIs
which are government infrastructures and have logics and dynamics that
are different to science's logics and dynamics.

Regards
Yola

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Longhorn [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Yola Georgiadou
Cc: SDI-legal-socioecon
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to
spatial cyberinfrastructures

Hi Yola,

Yes, perhaps a clever move for the research community - but having
dealt with government officials in an EU member state (not to be
named!) in the past week, they still focus on either "geographic
information infrastructure (GII)" (remember that!) or "geospatial data
infrastructure (GDI)" (and that?) and maybe (still not universally
accepted) "spatial data infrastructure (SDI)" or maybe "geospatial
data infrastructure" (another 'GDI' - confusingly!), not even
considering official appearance of "location information
infrastructure" (LII?) (in national strategies and statutory
instruments). I think we need to remember for which target audiences
we use which terms! Especially as the 'older' terminology is now
embedded in numerous national and regional (transnational) legal
frameworks.

However, I agree that anything we can do to help re-focus attention on
spatial/location data as an integral part of the wider global cyber
infrastructure is a 'good thing'. For example in the 'privacy debate'
- location privacy is only one aspect of privacy, now easily breached
using existing technologies in the location-aware cyber infrastructure
in which we live - while the other, non-spatial/locational data that
can be gleaned from the ether (Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn?) is just
as important in relation to personal privacy, protecting and
preventing abuse of identity information, etc.

Best regards

Roger Longhorn
[hidden email]
Editor, SDI Magazine
[hidden email]

On 12/12/2011 11:48, Yola Georgiadou wrote:

>
> The renaming of sdi to spatial cyberinfrastructure is a clever and
> timely move.  The relabeling integrates our community to other larger
> efforts in other disciplines, including the humanities.  The entire
> special  issue of PNAS (April 5, 2011) is worth reading.
>
> Yola
>
> *From:*[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Kate
> Lance
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2011 1:39 PM
> *To:* SDI-legal-socioecon
> *Subject:* [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to
> spatial cyberinfrastructures
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5510.full.pdf+html
>
> Users as essential contributors to spatial cyberinfrastructures
>
> Barbara S. Poore. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(14): 5510-5515
>
> Current accounts of spatial cyberinfrastructure development tend to
> overemphasize technologies to the neglect of critical social and
> cultural issues on which adoption depends. Spatial
> cyberinfrastructures will have a higher chance of success if users of
> many types, including nonprofessionals, are made central to the
> development process. Recent studies in the history of infrastructures
> reveal key turning points and issues that should be considered in the
> development of spatial cyberinfrastructure projects. These studies
> highlight the importance of adopting qualitative research methods to
> learn how users work with data and digital tools, and how user
> communities form. The author's empirical research on data sharing
> networks in the Pacific Northwest salmon crisis at the turn of the
> 21st century demonstrates that ordinary citizens can contribute
> critical local knowledge to global databases and should be considered
> in the design and construction of spatial cyberinfrastructures.
>
> "The designers of spatial CIs should give serious consideration to
> involving critical human geographers and other social scientists in
> projects from the beginning.
> These researchers, using qualitative tools, can contribute a number of
> insights to a developing CI. Knowing the histories of infrastructures,
> and in particular of SDIs, can counteract the utopian visions that
> frequently accompany the rollout of new systems, making these systems
> more effective in the long run. The focus in user studies in GIScience
> has traditionally been on the individual user and his or her response
> to the map interface, but this emphasis may be misplaced. Usability
> must take account of previously unappreciated work practices and
> articulations that the user has to make, and the tacit knowledge
> required. Uncovering these knowledges can only be attained by
> ethnographic methods."
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
> University of Twente Chamber of Commerce: 501305360000
>
> E-mail disclaimer
> The information in this e-mail, including any attachments, is intended
> for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action
> in relation to the content of this information is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete the message
> and any attachment and inform the sender by return e-mail. ITC accepts
> no liability for any error or omission in the message content or for
> damage of any kind that may arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Socioecon mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon

Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
University of Twente
Chamber of Commerce: 501305360000

E-mail disclaimer
The information in this e-mail, including any attachments, is intended
for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action
in relation to the content of this information is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete the message
and any attachment and inform the sender by return e-mail. ITC accepts
no liability for any error or omission in the message content or for
damage of any kind that may arise as a result of e-mail transmission.


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:47:03 -0600
From: Francis Harvey <[hidden email]>
To: Yola Georgiadou <[hidden email]>
Cc: SDI-legal-socioecon <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to
       spatial cyberinfrastructures
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I believe the semantic field associated with cyberinfrastructure
mainly marks academic and research domains' usage, in contrast to the
other terms (Roger's list) that circulate, often fulsomely, more in
government and private sectors.

This exchange turns to the central question of the names we use and
who we speak too. An interesting research project would be to analyze
terminological usage and map it in time and space. Even more
interesting would be to relate usage to research awards and contracts.

Best,
Francis



On 12 Dec 2011, at 14:30, Yola Georgiadou wrote:

> Roger, thanks for the as always thoughtful comments.
>
> It is intriguing that after 20 years we have not stabilized to one term, instead we still have GII, SII, SDI, GDI etc.On the contrary, the term GIS has never been contested. Why? I don't know.
>
> What I think is cool about mainstreaming ourselves into the cyberinfrastructure discourse, is first, that we avoid the data/information/knowledge conundrum and retain the spatial as a qualifier for cyberinfrastructure. They are BULL we are REDBULL, and that is easy to remember for all parties. Second, cyberinfrastructures are about science and not government. We as scientists have implicit and tacit knowledge of science, we have always been science's producers and users, and thus may be more successful in understanding/modelling/designing cyberinfrastructures, than SDIs which are government infrastructures and have logics and dynamics that are different to science's logics and dynamics.
>
> Regards
> Yola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Longhorn [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 1:41 PM
> To: Yola Georgiadou
> Cc: SDI-legal-socioecon
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to spatial cyberinfrastructures
>
> Hi Yola,
>
> Yes, perhaps a clever move for the research community - but having dealt with government officials in an EU member state (not to be named!) in the past week, they still focus on either "geographic information infrastructure (GII)" (remember that!) or "geospatial data infrastructure (GDI)" (and that?) and maybe (still not universally
> accepted) "spatial data infrastructure (SDI)" or maybe "geospatial data infrastructure" (another 'GDI' - confusingly!), not even considering official appearance of "location information infrastructure" (LII?) (in national strategies and statutory instruments). I think we need to remember for which target audiences we use which terms! Especially as the 'older' terminology is now embedded in numerous national and regional (transnational) legal frameworks.
>
> However, I agree that anything we can do to help re-focus attention on spatial/location data as an integral part of the wider global cyber infrastructure is a 'good thing'. For example in the 'privacy debate' - location privacy is only one aspect of privacy, now easily breached using existing technologies in the location-aware cyber infrastructure in which we live - while the other, non-spatial/locational data that can be gleaned from the ether (Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn?) is just as important in relation to personal privacy, protecting and preventing abuse of identity information, etc.
>
> Best regards
>
> Roger Longhorn
> [hidden email]
> Editor, SDI Magazine
> [hidden email]
>
> On 12/12/2011 11:48, Yola Georgiadou wrote:
>>
>> The renaming of sdi to spatial cyberinfrastructure is a clever and
>> timely move.  The relabeling integrates our community to other larger
>> efforts in other disciplines, including the humanities.  The entire
>> special  issue of PNAS (April 5, 2011) is worth reading.
>>
>> Yola
>>
>> *From:*[hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Kate
>> Lance
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2011 1:39 PM
>> *To:* SDI-legal-socioecon
>> *Subject:* [GSDI Legal Socioecon] Users as essential contributors to
>> spatial cyberinfrastructures
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5510.full.pdf+html
>>
>> Users as essential contributors to spatial cyberinfrastructures
>>
>> Barbara S. Poore. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(14): 5510-5515
>>
>> Current accounts of spatial cyberinfrastructure development tend to
>> overemphasize technologies to the neglect of critical social and
>> cultural issues on which adoption depends. Spatial
>> cyberinfrastructures will have a higher chance of success if users of
>> many types, including nonprofessionals, are made central to the
>> development process. Recent studies in the history of infrastructures
>> reveal key turning points and issues that should be considered in the
>> development of spatial cyberinfrastructure projects. These studies
>> highlight the importance of adopting qualitative research methods to
>> learn how users work with data and digital tools, and how user
>> communities form. The author's empirical research on data sharing
>> networks in the Pacific Northwest salmon crisis at the turn of the
>> 21st century demonstrates that ordinary citizens can contribute
>> critical local knowledge to global databases and should be considered
>> in the design and construction of spatial cyberinfrastructures.
>>
>> "The designers of spatial CIs should give serious consideration to
>> involving critical human geographers and other social scientists in
>> projects from the beginning.
>> These researchers, using qualitative tools, can contribute a number of
>> insights to a developing CI. Knowing the histories of infrastructures,
>> and in particular of SDIs, can counteract the utopian visions that
>> frequently accompany the rollout of new systems, making these systems
>> more effective in the long run. The focus in user studies in GIScience
>> has traditionally been on the individual user and his or her response
>> to the map interface, but this emphasis may be misplaced. Usability
>> must take account of previously unappreciated work practices and
>> articulations that the user has to make, and the tacit knowledge
>> required. Uncovering these knowledges can only be attained by
>> ethnographic methods."
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -- Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
>> University of Twente Chamber of Commerce: 501305360000
>>
>> E-mail disclaimer
>> The information in this e-mail, including any attachments, is intended
>> for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action
>> in relation to the content of this information is strictly prohibited.
>> If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete the message
>> and any attachment and inform the sender by return e-mail. ITC accepts
>> no liability for any error or omission in the message content or for
>> damage of any kind that may arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Legal-Socioecon mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon
>
> Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
> University of Twente
> Chamber of Commerce: 501305360000
>
> E-mail disclaimer
> The information in this e-mail, including any attachments, is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action in relation to the content of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete the message and any attachment and inform the sender by return e-mail. ITC accepts no liability for any error or omission in the message content or for damage of any kind that may arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Socioecon mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Legal-Socioecon mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon


End of Legal-Socioecon Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6
**********************************************