Europeana Generic Services Projects Meeting, 29-30 October 2018, The Hague Harry Verwayen - A Changing Landscape

1. A changing landscape
Generic Services meeting I October 23 2018
Harry Verwayen

2. New team at Europeana
Foundation
Harry Albert Zubia Andy
Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

3. Core Service
DSI-4
Start 1 september 2018,
for 2 + 1 +1 years
7 mln/yr
Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

4. Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

5. Generic Services
3 projects: migrations in arts & manuscripts
& Byzart
8 new projects from September
[4 new project from January]
2-3 mln/yr
Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

6. Europeana evaluation
● REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on
the evaluation of Europeana and the way forward
6.9.2018
● Position: ‘… a pan-European enabler of the digital
transformation of cultural heritage and a key initiative
on democratic access to culture’
Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

7. Working together
● Common technical architecture
● Common protocols
● Common policies
● Brand harmonization
Generica Services Meeting
CC BY-SA

9. New team at the
Commission
Gail Rehana Krzysztof

10. From CEF to DEP
● Digital Europe Programme is proposed by the
commission for a budget of 9.2 billion (Cnect)
● Europeana is to be funded under pilar 5 (1.3 bln),
section 5 (education & culture)
● Europeana is not yet mentioned put proposed in
amendements of Cult Committee

11. Europeana evaluation
● REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on
the evaluation of Europeana and the way forward
6.9.2018
● Position: ‘… a pan-European enabler of the digital
transformation of cultural heritage and a key initiative
on democratic access to culture’

12. Europeana evaluation
● In response to the Council’s request, the Commission
carried out:
● A) evaluation on five mandatory criteria (relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value)
● B) An analysis of possible options for the mid- and
long-term development of Europeana, based on the
outcomes of the evaluation.

13. 1) Relevance
● Relevance: high (> two-thirds of respondents)
● Noted issues: data quality
Our views:
● This is in line with current strategic priorities
● But we need to increase understanding of roles &
responsibilities in this matter

14. 2) Effectiveness
● Good in some areas (standards, best practices,
advocacy) less so in others (aggregation
infrastructure, capabilities of the platform, reaching out
to users)
Our views:
● This is understood to be correct
● But improving the infrastructure is a common task of
aggregators (Common Culture), improving capabilities
of the platform re multilingualism is (very) complex

15. 3) Efficiency
● Overall, Europeana shows potential for improving its
efficiency.
● Workflows are complex and there is a lack of tools
Our views:
● Complex workflows yes, lack of tools no
● Requires a joint approach between EF, aggregators,
MS and EC

16. 4) Coherency
● Europeana is coherent with both EU and MS
strategies and policies
Our views:
● We agree

17. 5) EU added value
● Europeana has brought added value by playing a
significant role in the digital development of the cultural
heritage sector in Europe. In addition, Europeana has
contributed to underpinning a sense of shared history
and identity among Europeans.
Our views:
● We agree

18. Orientations
● Strengthening the core platform
● Empowerment of cultural heritage institutions
● Showcase the potential of such content through
curated and multilingual collections, exhibitions and
virtual galleries based on high quality data (Smart
Content)
● Continue standardisation and innovation
● Funded and governed by EU