Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Aspirations toward technological sovereignty increasingly pervade the political debate. Yet, an ambiguous definition leaves the exact goal of those aspirations and the policies to fulfil them unclear. This opens the door for vested interests who benefit from misinterpreting the goal, e.g., as a strive for autarky, nationalism, and the rollback of globalization. To close this gap, we show how certain key technologies challenge state sovereignty as conventionally understood. By interpreting technological sovereignty in this light, we develop a competence-based definition, which puts innovation policy at the core of fulfilling sovereignty aspirations. Moreover, we establish the important role of international cooperation and trade to enhance technological sovereignty understood as ability. Hence, autarky would be detrimental rather than helpful to technological sovereignty. Two case studies illustrate how innovation policy helps to achieve technological sovereignty.

Aspirations towards technological sovereignty increasingly pervade the political debate. Yet, an ambiguous definition leaves the exact goal of those aspirations and the policies to fulfill them unclear. This leaves room for partly particularly negative interpretations, such as equating the concept with a strive for autarky, nationalism, and the roll-back of globalization. We develop a competence-based definition of technological sovereignty, which puts innovation policy at the core of fulfilling sovereignty aspirations. Moreover, we show how our definition realigns technological sovereignty with international cooperation and trade. Two case studies illustrate how innovation policy might be used to achieve technological sovereignty.

Digitale Innovationen verändern zunehmend Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Es ist Aufgabe der Politik, diese Veränderungen im Dialog mit der Gesellschaft und im Einklang mit unseren Werten zu gestalten. Technologiesouveränität ist dafür eine wichtige Voraussetzung. Dabei geht es nicht um die Abschottung von internationalen Märkten, sondern um die Fähigkeit, Anforderungen an Technologien zu formulieren und diese am Markt durchzusetzen. Einer integrierten Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik, die die Förderung von Technologieentwicklung, Technologietransfer und Zukunftskompetenzen gleichermaßen in den Blick nimmt und auf europäische Zusammenarbeit setzt, kommt dabei eine zentrale Rolle zu.

Open data has been given a lot of attention in the public. In some situation 'open by default' has become established as a core principle, whereas others argue about the limited results and the lack of robust studies demonstrating the value, and point to the risk that open data might turn out to be a short lived policy fad. This special issue contains a variety of research papers addressing this topic from different views and providing recent research results on open data. The papers in this issue deepen the understanding of open data and show that the subject of open data is moving from the general to the study of specifics. The special issue also includes invited papers presented at the first public meeting of the SharePSI project. Share-PSI 2.0 is the European network for the exchange of experience and ideas around implementing open data policies in the public sector.

During the past years, various activities and concepts have shaped and prepared the path for the development of urban environments toward smart cities across the world. One of the initial activities was relating to the opening of vast amounts of data from various public administrations and utility companies within a city in order to create a viable eco-system of urban services and applications. Thereby, the harvested metadata needed to be verified in terms of correctness and a corresponding level of quality had to be assured. In addition, the concept of an Open Urban Platform emerged as an overall solution for smart cities Information Communication Technology (ICT) in the sense that an abstract reference model was established and standardized, providing an overall picture of the ICT structures within a city. Within this article, we use the Open Urban Platform concept as the basics to describe and map our activities within the Open Data domain, focusing mainly on the Open Data prototype for German Open Governmental Data—namely GovData.DE. Thereby, we describe our metadata harvesting and metadata quality assurance approach and discuss on lessons learned, which flow into the definition of metadata quality metrics and have the potential to lead to a corresponding standard within the Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN) German national standardization.