The Publication Seminar & Workshop

On 31st of November and 1st of December we organised the publication seminar in Helsinki for the Baseline Study, and held a workshop relating to Work Package 3, The versatile use of the Nordic and Baltic legal databases. Thank you to all participants on site and online, and we are looking forward to seeing also the rest of you in the future!

Below you find a concise summary and sketchnotes from the workshop.

Day 1

Introduction


To begin with, the organisers pointed out some of the key aspects in the Baseline Study, namely from sections 5.4.2 Barriers for cross-border data access and interoperability, and 5.5.1 The new joint Nordic-Baltic search interface.


Objectives of the project

We discussed the objectives of the project as well as the costs and benefits related to it on the first day. The following questions were discussed regarding these topics:

Among other things, the chance to automatise the joint interface was considered a great advantage: it would both reduce administrative burden and ensure the reliability of the provided data. Furthermore, the project was seen as an opportunity to incentivise the participating countries to use semantically well-structured and machine readable data. (See full list of answers at the bottom of the page) [i].


Furthermore, we discussed the assessment of costs and benefits related to the project:

This question was proven to be a complex one, but the participants highlighted that for the assessment of benefits the users must start by identifying the users and conducting qualitative research about their needs. This crucial question was also discussed on the second day. Furthermore, the interface’s ability to reduce inquiries to other info points would need to be assessed.

As for the costs, the resources needed for translating were mentioned, together with the costs related to making data accessible.  [ii]


Day 2

Obstacles to be overcome


On the second day, we started by mapping strengths and weaknesses to the project. Please see the illustration above and the full list of answers in the endnotes.

The following questions were discussed on the basis of answers submitted on a web platform:

Participants raised many important issues to be borne in mind as the project advances, most notably:

Furthermore, one key aspect in the project that seemed to induce optimism in the participants was the opportunity that


Next steps

Finally, we looked forward together, regarding the two approaches that will be applied parallelly in 2022:

The organisers will be in touch with the participants to the project regarding both of these approaches early in 2022. We will aim to find the ideal participants to each phase and to agree on working methods that best suit the project. We are looking forward to working with you also in 2022!


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Endnotes

[i] What benefits could be achieved through the Nordic-Baltic joint legal search interface?

If made compatible (e.g. by using ELI metadata), what could the interface add to existing European services, such as Your Europe?

Answers (and number of upvotes on the online platform):

The ability to compare legislation more easily.

3

Added value: Possibility to keep content automatically current without administrative burden

3

Side-effect of forcing national organizations to use semantically well structured, machine readable data

3

The security of knowing that the database includes the most recent legislation - something that you can easily be unsure of when looking something up in a foreign country’s database

3

Make it easier for law students and professionals to get to know other countries’ legislation

2

Developing a standard presentation that could apply to all  entries in the database

1

For a layperson, seeing what is different in another country compared to home country

0

From a Swedish perspective we are at the moment not sure what added value could be achieved since we have not adopted for instance ELI

0

Straightforwardness, reducing the need of e-mails etc. Simple information could be obtained more easily, and tricky (legal) situations could be left for professionals to solve

0


[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