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…..