...
[ii] What indicators should be used in the cost-benefit analysis of the search interface and the ”back office” solutions in the participating countries?
Answers (and number of upvotes on the online platform):
I think some of the benefits may only be measured by qualitative analysis: Is this service helpful? How? Etc. | 2 |
The starting point should maybe be to analyse the needs in more detail to understand what the potential user wants and demands and thereafter try to understand the costs compared to that | 1 |
Resources (time, personnel) needed to translate data and make it accessible to the search interface | 1 |
Amount of inquiries to national services/info points (should reduce) | 0 |
...
[iii] List things that do not work well, that raise doubts in you, or which you consider to be obstacles to the success of the project
Answers (and number of upvotes on the online platform):
Needed: A better understanding of the needs from the user perspective | 4 |
The value of the project is unclear | 4 |
Needed: Analysis of EU projects to avoid overlapping work | 4 |
Who are the actual target users? Legal or other professionals, or citizens? | 4 |
Needed: Analysis of other ways to achieve the desired results | 4 |
What is the primary target group of this project? If it is citizens in the Nordic and Baltic countries, do they need more information of the legal texts or just easy-to -understand information about the rules in different life situations? | 4 |
The relation to the national citizens’ portals has to be clarified | 4 |
The lack of common formats and standards, e.g. metadata and thesauri | 3 |
Needed: A cost and benefit analysis | 3 |
The goals are the same as for ongoing EU-projects | 3 |
As identified in the report the solution with a search interface will take a long time to implement and will require extensive resources, financing and efforts | 3 |
It is not clear what the aim is for the project. How comprehensive is the database intended to be? | 3 |
Different formatting of national databases | 2 |
The lack of widespread use of translations or summaries | 2 |
Not all legislation is always up to date in national databases - e.g. in retsinformation.dk you will always have to check the “later changes” column in order to have an overview of current law. | 2 |
We need more information on the current use of metadata in the national legal databases | 1 |
National funding for the development of national databases. Without those there cannot be a joint interface either, regardless of how much funding it gets | 1 |
Is the objectives mainly for professionals or for people in common? | 1 |
It would be useful to know which countries could participate in the Proof-of-Concept work | 1 |
Analysis of the technical requirements for the search interface and the national databases and websites that would need to be included | 1 |
Of little use outside «Scandinavia» due to lack of translations | 1 |
Keeping data up-to-date if manual work is needed. | 1 |
...
[iv] List things that work already well in the project, or make you feel optimistic about the project
Answers (and number of upvotes on the online platform):
Using similar metadata standards and data formats will open up new possibilities of co-operation in the future | 4 |
Increasing knowledge of the legal information in different countries | 3 |
The participants are aware of the current situation in the Nordic and Baltic countries | 2 |
There are several sources of information available for this work | 2 |
It is positive that there appears to be political backing behind the project | 2 |
Standardization of intention and legal content | 2 |
Everyone's initiative to have legal information/texts available in a language that all can understand | 1 |
Knowledgeable and nice people to work with! | 1 |
Easier to access information, especially if in user’s language | 1 |
More accessible legal information | 1 |
...