EUInside

Kennisinstituut voor amateurkunst en cultuurinstituut

Seems like candidates for re-euse somewhere in the ECK

Inspiration for the Europeana Management Information?

Wikimedia as extra target for the ECK?

Klimpel, Paul. [14]Free Knowledge Based on Creative Commons Licenses: Consequences, Risks and Side-Effects of the License Module Berlin: Wikimedia Germany, February

another service useful to overcome barriers for using the ECK

developped tools/service might be implemented in the ECK to apply right labels in batch.

Not sure what the staus of this project (?) is but it addresses an important issue in the Europeana ecosystem.

Provides ideas about how to continue actvities after an European project has finished. Maybe projects providing technical solutions needs different scenarios but I think it's relevant to look at.

Overview of what are non-functional requirements

The IPR Wizard can be used by partners (affiliated or contractors) only. Those partners have in charge one groups/channel at which their content is associated with, any institution and/or company may get affiliated with ECLAP. The groups coordinator may ask to have among its affiliated people one or more IPR Managers. To this end, an email has to be sent to info@eclap.eu. The IPR Managers may use the IPR Wizard to set up permissions and restrictions about the usage of the published content on ECLAP portal and related mobile devices according to the ECLAP terms of use. (...)

IPR whizard from the ECLAP project

Different aggregation models with advantages and disadvantages

Also highly relevant since it specifies how proprietary metadata is transformed in a couple of stages into Europeana EDM as well as other service providers including Flickr. The only concern is that for HOPE it was clear from the beginning that a central service was delivered unlike EU-Inside.

A good example for D2.4? Although in the document it says: we must stress that this document is neither a Functional Requirements nor a Technical Specifications document. It's unclear to me if such documents have been produced in the HOPE project and if they are accessible to us.

Also has a chapter of implementing licence in data exchange.

The annex lists user requirements but they are very basic descriptions in which the end users on the web are always actors. Less relevent as an example for D2.4 I guess.

Highly relevent to D2.4. because there is quite some overlap although EUscreen also aggregates content.

Interesting as inspiration for D2.4 although they seem to take a different approach. Listing requirements per content provider with the objective of making each content provider into a EDM resource. You could say they have developped tailored ECK to be fully implemented into the local ICT infrastructure of content providers.

Project Assets

Useful for inspiration of D2.4.

helps institutions to choose the appropriate license for their content.