[Freegis-list] Campaign for rejecting Inspire directive?

[michael gould]

Benjamin,

You have hit upon a concern that has been voiced repeatedly on the EGIP
(egip at jrc.it) and other Inspire-related lists. The Inspire proposed
framework directive is being watered down, as these Euro agreements often
do, through the comitology (co-decision) process. Whereas in many
governments bipartisan agreement must be reached...or perhaps among 4 or 5
parties...here we have 25+ chiming in, and also tension between Parliament,
Council and Commission.

The current thinking among Inspire creators/supporters, is that it is better
to get a weak directive signed, and then work on the implementation rules to
try to tighten things up, than to try to get a strong version passed up
front only to see it rejected for all sorts of minor objections from each of
the 25+. It's called consensus, and it's how OGC and other orgs (and most
governments) get things done. (Remember that Europe has a 20+ year history
of GI initiatives dying unsigned on some Commissioner's desktop; this time
we want some sort of result!)

The process of drafting implementation rules is already under way; the first
meeting of the so-called Drafting Teams is Oct 3-4. I am on the metadata DT,
and will do my best to try to get things tightened up there: not merely
state that ISO19115/39 should be implemented, but rather demanding, in as
strong a language as possible, that md generation be automated and made
easier (and even fun) to create and publish. Also that the "right" md be
collected in the right way at the right time. If not then perhaps the whole
house of cards falls, in the same sense that other semantic web initiatives
rely on md glue holding them together.

Back to your point. Campaign for rejection? I don't think that wise, as
currently there is no alternative solution on the table...so at this time
what we have is better than nothing. The current GI situation in Europe is
heavily NMA-controlled, however I see their position(s) evolving some over
the past few years. I anticipate they will tend toward a new role as SDI
coordinators (as apparently USGS is doing also) rather than (only) data
producers. As coordinators they will find the current licensing and pricing
schemes too messy and will themselves lobby for more open distribution
(sharing) among the partners they are coordinating.

Alternative to campaign for rejection? Gentle pressure in the form of
alternatives proposed on lists such as this one. It is my impression that
more radical approaches --especially those from individuals or small groups
labeling themselves as hackers (!)-- do not get decision-makers' attention
and are too easily dismissed. Practical demos of how things could be
different seem to be working better. The people at geowankers list are good
at producing these examples...new ideas appear daily.

But remember that complete solutions are not only tech-related. They need to
include solutions for tricky legal issues such as digital rights management,
versioning, etc.

So let's hear fully-developed ideas on how to migrate 25 NMAs from cost
recovery mode to public dissemination mode!

These are going to be interesting times (next 5 years or so).

-----------
Michael Gould
Department of Information Systems (LSI)
Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellón Spain
E-mail: gould (at) lsi.uji.es
http://www.mgould.com
http://www.geoinfo.uji.es
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: freegis-list-bounces at intevation.de
[mailto:freegis-list-bounces at intevation.de] En nombre de Benjamin Henrion
Enviado el: martes, 16 de agosto de 2005 0:29
Para: freegis-list at intevation.de
Asunto: [Freegis-list] Campaign for rejecting Inspire directive?

Hi,

I had a look at the amendments proposed in second reading by
Parliament/Council on the Inspire Directive, but none of the amendments
seems to say that data collected with public money should be put in the
Public Domain, like it seems to be the case in the US (if you can
clarify the situation of geo-data in the US, please do so).

The current legislative proposal seems to go for strong copyright for
geo-data producers, in order to "recover their costs".

This is a shame for public geo-data, and I think a campaign should be
launched for rejection.

No new amendments can be introduced for the second reading in the
European Parliament.

--
Benjamin Henrion <bh at udev.org>
http://bh.udev.org
<<                 Software patents are a Temptation                     >>>
<<                  Temptation leads to Stagnation                       >>>
<<                Stagnation leads to the Dark Side.                     >>>

_______________________________________________
Freegis-list mailing list
Freegis-list at intevation.de
https://intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/freegis-list