1. euroCRIS strategy 2011-2015 Board meeting, Lille, november 2011 Anne Asserson University of Bergen, board member euroCRIS

2. 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

3. 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

4. Until we have an overall strategy we cannot know how to prioritise our resources 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 listed 3. shepherding the community: website, member meetings 4. spreading the word - interlinking with other communities - conference 5. working for strategy for Europe (and wider) with strategic partners What should euroCRIS look in 2015?

5. 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

6. euroCRIS website should be the portal of choice for all research information world wide www.cris.?

7. A strong will and many attempts through the years….. CRIS98 www.cordis.lu/cerif

8. 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

9. CRIS suppliers have their own views what a CRIS should look like Possible barriers to discourage us developing a portal……

10. 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……

11. 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 X more ….……. 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)

12. 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…..

13. Advantages: No single point of failure Customised user interfaces ….. Disadvantages: Keeping catalogue synchronised ….. Implications: …..

14. Disadvantages: Potential bottleneck 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)

15. 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

16. 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.

18. 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 groups Task groups should relate to the overall strategy that should be governed by the board. Each task group should do its part within a cohesive strategy Other task groups …..

19. 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

20. ….euroCRIS need an overall strategy to decide where we will put in our resources…..