Upload
eileen-cannon
View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
euroCRIS strategy2011-2015
Board meeting, Lille, november 2011
Anne AssersonUniversity of Bergen, board member euroCRIS
What should euroCRIS look like in 2015
Barriers to stop it
Portal Architecture(s)
How do we make it happen?
The Task groups
Big statements
The usual key issues that has been discussed related to strategy are
1. Promotion of CERIF
2. Increased membership
3. Website
4. Strategic partners
5. OA community to move from DC to CERIF
6. EU funded project to demonstrate capability
Until we have an overall strategy we cannot know how to prioritise ourresources or which projects we should go for.
Overall issues:
1. Do we have a portal running?2. If not, maintaining, developing, promoting the CERIF standard
(but relate back to portal) - CERIF-CRIS for (1) compliance testing (2) test-drives for potential users
2. spreading best practice - based on our principles listed3. shepherding the community: website, member meetings4. spreading the word - interlinking with other communities -
conference5. working for strategy for Europe (and wider) with strategic
partners
What should euroCRIS look in 2015?
Some reasons why we should go for a portal?
• Toll free unrestricted access to Research Information• CERIF was designed to be the vehicle to make that happen.
This is what CERIF is built for• euroCRIS has the metadata and moral authority• A good portal will improve/make known euroCRIS position in the
world.• EU projects are one way of building the portal
euroCRIS website should bethe portal of choice for all research information world wide
www.cris.?
A strong will and many attempts through the years…..
CRIS98
www.cordis.lu/cerif
Barriers to stop developing a portal
• SciVal, Research in View– It might be a feeling that we have what is necessary, that there is
no need for a Global CRIS• Google and Google Scholar• OpenAIRE• CRIS suppliers have their own views what a CRIS should look like• Development of the portal software with associated catalogues• Populating the catalogues• Advertising and PR
CRIS suppliers have their own views what a CRIS should look like
Possible barriers to discourage us developing a portal……
Portal architectures
• The participating CRIS needs an interface for the portal to talk to. Useless if there is not a lot of CERIF interfaces.
• Specification of a portal and specification of all problems to make it work (see the ERGO++)
• Several varieties of how make the portal work:– simplest. Automatic fill in the local fields of a SQL query or something a
little more elegant. URL (navigational metadata) This is too crude to dump at a CRIS
– global portal more complicated
• What has to be in the catalogue? Navigational metadata and Schema and restrictive metadata
• More……
To the external user the portal should respond to
“Give me all publications of theme XWZ (full text)”“Draw me an animated graph of XWZ”“Give me all the persons/publications/ equipment/facilities that belongs to Project Xmore ….…….
Outreach:• Persuade communities to use a CERIF-CRIS• persuading policymakers and funders ( have not
succeeded well)• practitioners and users and members (ok . seminars,
members meetings, conferences are taking care of this)
To the Internal user - euroCRIS board and Task Groups
To be the portal of choice euroCRIS needs• World Wide acceptance of CERIF• euroCRIS should provide CERIF with a set of services
But this has a lot of implications •Do we have an attached CERIF-CRIS•Do we have attached euroCRIS branded software that anyone can use•Does our portal do the translating •Development of software to provide free open source reference implementation •Projects that we are involved in •Website Outreach:Better with practitioners and managers then strategic partners…..
Advantages:• No single point of failure• Customised user interfaces• …..
Catalogue
Nat
iona
l C
RIS
U
K
Nat
iona
l C
RIS
R
ussi
a
CR
IS
User interface
CatalogueCatalogue
User interface User interface
Disadvantages:
• Keeping catalogue synchronised
• …..
Implications: …..
Disadvantages:• Potential bottleneck
Catalogue
CR
IS 1
CR
IS 2
CR
IS 3
CR
IS 4
User Interface
Advantages:• Single comprehensive catalogue• Closely associated with portal (can do
semantic translations etc…) • Improve best practice by controlling
the semantics.
Implications: •One catalogue under interface. •Useless if there is not a lot of CERIF interfaces•euroCRIS portal and accesses everything equally. •implication that DRIS has to be redefined and much stronger. •How can we connect 3 CRISs to demonstrate that it works ( Atira application, Converis application and one home made)
The participating CRIS needs an interface for the portal to talk to.
Specification of a portal and specification of all problems to make it work (see the ERGO++)
Need training courses for CERIF trainers with use cases.Several varieties of how make the portal work:
– simplest. Automatic fill in the local fields of a SQL query or something a little more elegant
– global portal….
• Portal with the catalogue. • One catalogue under interface. Useless if there is not a lot of CERIF
interfaces.• What has to be in the catalogue?• URL (navigational metadata) This is too crude to dump at a CRIS • Navigational metadata and Schema and restrictive metadata
How do we make it happen?
euroCRIS has two advantages that we must sell:
Custodian of the CERIF model and Non for profit organisation
• Use CERIF implementation• CERIF – expanding user areas (governmental and funding,
etc…)means expanding CERIF• CASRAI solely semantics• To which new domain do we want to push CERIF? If any???
– CDR Cooperate data repositories
• One way to develop this portal is through EU or other projects • Engage will develop a portal for PSI (Public Service Information)
where CERIF is the metadata.
USER interface
ALLEA All European Academies (Researchers) EARMA European Assosiation of Reseaarch Managers and Administrators (Managers)
VIVO and LOD Linked Open Data (RDF level)
Application Software
-Navigational Metdata-Schema
-Restrictive metadata
Statistics, search facilities, output,…...
CERIF-CRIS
SemanticsJISC interoperation projects
EU projects
Institutional Repositories, IR og Datasets/software
APA Alliance of Digitale Preservation
Variation of CRISsFRISPure
ConverisSymplectic
CRIStin
ICSU/CODATA data set level
CASRAI
CERIF task group
CERIF need :
• more details on persons
• more details on funding
• more details on organisation
• …..
DRIS/Best Practice task group
DRIS has to include wider and more complicated information of other CRISs, like
•Navigational/restrictive metadata•Schema information•DRIS has to be redefined and much stronger.
•How can we connect 3 CRISs to demonstrate that it works ( Atira application, Converis application and one home made)
The Task groupsTask groups should relate to the overall strategy that should be governed by theboard. Each task group should do its part within a cohesive strategy
Other task groups
• …..
Big statements…..
• A repository will never be a CRIS• If a repository exists, it should be
connected with a CERIF-CRIS• If starting from a green field
application, do not establish a publication repository. Have the full text in the CRIS.
• Distinguish publications repository from dataset/software repository
CRIS
Data sets
A CRIS has focus on the dynamics/relationships between the objects/entities
A repository has focus on the unique full text document or the unique data set
….euroCRIS need an overall strategy to decide where we will put in our resources…..