Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Information Assetization Policy of Records: Focusing on Directive (EU) 2019/1024

기록의 정보자산화 정책 연구 - Directive (EU) 2019/1024를 중심으로 -

  • 정민선 (충남대학교 일반대학원 기록관리학과) ;
  • 김순희 (충남대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2023.05.26
  • Accepted : 2023.06.21
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the arrival of the knowledge information society, records as assets have become increasingly important. As defined in ISO 30300, records must be actively utilized to contribute to organizational management and generate added value. To create added value through records, their utilization must be prioritized. While countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Australia recognize records as assets and propose record assetization policies, specific measures for managing records as assets have yet to be suggested. To address this gap, we analyze Directive (EU) 2019/1024, established by the EU, to facilitate commercial use and promote accessible public information. We derive seven characteristics from the analysis and extract insights from Italian policies and actual implementation cases that reflect them in accordance with the regulations of the EU guidelines. In addition, the correlation between the Public Data Act and the Public Records Act in Korea was revealed, and points that could reflect Directive (EU) 2019/1024 in Korea were derived. Through this study, it is expected that public data will be treated as information assets and serve as a stepping stone for preparing information assetization policies for records.

지식정보사회가 도래하며 점차 자산으로서의 기록이 중요시되었다. 자산으로서의 기록은 ISO 30300에서 기록을 정의하듯이 조직 경영을 위해 적극적으로 활용되어 부가가치를 창출할 수 있어야 한다. 이처럼 기록을 통해 부가가치를 창출하기 위해서는 기록의 활용이 우선시되어야 한다. 이를 위해 영국, 뉴질랜드, 호주 등 해외에서 기록을 자산으로 인식한 기록 자산화 정책을 제시하고 있지만, 이론적인 방안만 제시할 뿐 구체적으로 기록을 자산으로 관리하는 방안은 제시하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 기록을 자산으로 관리하고 활용하기 위한 방안을 도출하고자 EU에서 공공 분야 정보를 대상으로 상업적 활용과 자유로운 정보 접근을 목적으로 제정한 Directive (EU) 2019/1024를 분석하였다. 분석을 통해 7가지 특징을 도출하였고 EU 지침의 규정에 따라 이를 반영한 이탈리아의 정책과 실제 정책 구현 사례를 통해 시사점을 도출하였다. 또한 국내의 공공데이터법과 공공기록물법의 상호연관성을 밝히며 Directive (EU) 2019/1024를 국내에 반영 가능한 점들을 도출하였다. 이 연구를 통해 공공데이터를 정보자산으로 다루며 기록의 정보자산화 정책 마련의 발판이 될 것이라 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Act on the Promotion of Provision and Use of Public Data. No. 17344.
  2. Chae, Minhoon & Rieh, Hae-young (2021). Study on integrated plan for records management based on knowledge management. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 21(1), 163-187. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2021.21.1.163
  3. Information and documentation - Records management - Core concepts and vocabulary. KS X ISO30300.
  4. Jeong, Ki-Ae (2010). A study on the implications of the MSR standards for the development of records management practice in Korea. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 10(2), 171-192. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2010.10.2.171
  5. Jun, Bo Bae & Seol, Moon Won (2021). Implementation plan to ensure digital continuity of university information resources. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 21(1), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2021.21.1.141
  6. Kim, Haklae & Son, Ji-Sung (2018). A Study on the Pan-Government Knowledge Platform for Public Data Sharing and Utilization. Kisti Research Report.
  7. Kim, Min Ho & Lee, Bo-ok (2020). Recent trends of the amendment of the public sector information Directive in EU and its implications to the Republic of Korea. SungKyunKwan Law Review, 32(1), 1-30.
  8. Kim, Myoung-hun (2017). Record, information, knowledge: a preliminary study for knowledge & information resources of records. Korean Society of Archival Studies, 54, 45-79. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2017.54.045
  9. Kim, Myoung-hun (2021). Information assetization of records: analysis of information asset management trends of the national archives in each country. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 21(4), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2021.21.4.045
  10. Kim, You-Seung (2014). A study on legal issues of public data management as records: focused on analysis of the Act on Provision and Use of Public Data. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 14(1), 53-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2014.14.1.053
  11. Lee, Jung-eun & Youn, Eun-ha (2018). A study on the major characteristics of the revised ISO 15489 in 2016. Korean Society of Archival Studies, 57, 75-111. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2018.57.075
  12. Park, Hai-Geun (2008). Managing intangible assets for enhancing corporate competitiveness. Accounting Information Review, 13, 15-35.
  13. Public Records Management Act. No. 18740.
  14. Roh, Jeong-Ran (2005). A study on the relation between record and information management and knowledge management from the perspective of knowledge management: focused on the definition and management process. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 39(4), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2005.39.4.005
  15. Seol, Moon Won (2020). Managing information as records asset: public records policies in the digital transformation era. Korean Society of Archival Studies, 63, 5-36. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2020.63.005
  16. Seol, Moon-won (2021). Understanding Archival Science. Seoul: Goodwritting Publishing.
  17. Seol, Moon-won (2022). Archival meaning of legal evidence. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 22(1), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2022.22.1.219
  18. Statistics Korea (2020). Statistical Terms. Available: https://kostat.go.kr/statTerm.es?act=view&mid=a10503000000
  19. Wang, Ho-Sung & Seol, Moon-Won (2017). A study on managing dataset records in government information system. Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management, 17(3), 23-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.14404/JKSARM.2017.17.3.023
  20. Brothman, B. (2002). Afterglow_conceptions of record and evidence in archival discourse. Archival science, 2(3), 311-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435627
  21. EU Monitor (2019). Directive 2019/1024 - Open data and the re-use of public sector information (recast). Available: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vkzpoa72e4z5
  22. European Commission (2023, February 15). The European Commission decides to refer BELGIUM, BULGARIA, LATVIA and the NETHERLANDS to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to enact EU rules on open data and public sector data re-use. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_706
  23. European Sources Online (2019, June 26) Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. Available: https://www.europeansources.info/record/directive-eu-2019-1024-on-open-dataand-the-re-use-of-public-sector-information/
  24. Information and Documentation-Records Management-Part 1: Concepts and Principles. ISO 15489-1:2016.
  25. Klareld, A. S. (2015a). Isn't it information assets we're really talking about_A discourse analysis of a panel discussion on digital archives. Archives and Records, 36(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2015.1058245
  26. Klareld, A. S. (2015b). The "middle archive" exploring the practical and theoretical implications of a new concept in Sweden. Records Management Journal, 25(2), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-12-2014-0047
  27. Lenzi, E. & Nanni, I. (2022, January 13). OPEN DATA: gli operatori economici possono finalmente sfruttare i dati della societa dell'informazione. Studio Legale Stefanelli & Stefanelli. Available: https://www.studiolegalestefanelli.it/it/approfondimenti/open-data-gli-operatorieconomici-possono-finalmente-sfruttare-i-dati-della-societa-dellinformazione/
  28. MacNeil, H. (2001). Trusting Records in a Postmodern World. Archivaria, 51(February), 36-47.
  29. Open data and the re-use of public sector information. Directive (EU) 2019/1024.
  30. Svard, P. & Borglund, E. (2022). The implementation of an e-archive to facilitate open data publication and the use of common specifications: a case of three Swedish agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101751
  31. Van Loenen, B., Zuiderwijk, A., Vancau-Wenberghe, G., Lopez-Pellicer, F. J., Mulder, I., Alexopoulos, C., Magnussen, R., Saddiqa, M., Dulong de Rosnay, M., Crompvoets, J., Polini, A., Re, B., & Flores, C. C. (2021). Towards value-creating and sustainable open data ecosystems: A comparative case study and a research agenda. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 13(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v13i2.644
  32. Vuckovic, R. M., Kanceljak, I., & Juric, M. (2021). Is It Time for New Data Governance. In 2021 44th International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology(MIPRO), 1483-1489. https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO52101.2021.9597161
  33. Yeo, G. (2018). Records, Information and Data: exploring the role of record-keeping in an information culture. London: Facet Publishing.
  34. Yoon, S. P., Joo, M. H., & Kwon, H. Y. (2018). Role of law as a guardian of the right to use public sector information: case study of Korean government. In 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, 83, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209297