|
|
||
|
C L
R C |
||
|
|
|
|
|
rutherford appleton laboratory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.euroCRIS.org |
||
|
|
V 20011203 |
|
1. Introduction
Following preparatory meetings on Wednesday 31 October of the CERIF Task Group, the Planning Group and the CRIS2002 Programme Committee, the euroCRIS Organisation (formerly the euroCRIS Platform) met at The Cosener’s House, a study / conference centre owned by CLRC-RAL. For further information see: http://www.cclrc.ac.uk/Activity/ACTIVITY=CosenersHouse;. The agenda with hyperlinks to appropriate submissions and supporting material had been published at http://www.ub.uib.no/avdeling/fdok/cris/UKmeeting/agenda.htm In fact, at the meeting, some minor changes were made to the agenda as recorded below.
2. Agenda
2.1 20011101 0930-1100 Report of Planning Task Group: Chair: Marga van Meel; Rapporteur: Harrie Lalieu
Aim of
this session was to set the scene for the discussion on the structure and
future of euroCRIS planned for the afternoon session.
As an
introduction a recapitulation was given of the decisions taken during the
latest platform meeting in Amsterdam: a mission statement was drafted, a
planning group was established and given an mandate to return recommendations
of constitutional and structural nature, the Program Committee for the CRIS
2002 Conference in Kassel was initiated, the CERIF Task Group was established,
and, finally, the euroCRIS Secretariat was transferred to NIWI, Amsterdam.
The
Planning Group has focused on constitutional matters:
-
charters
have been drafted (long ‘legal’ version as well as a short ‘public’ version;
-
a
proposal has been made for the establishment of four Task Groups, i.e. CERIF,
European Research Information System (ERIS), euroCRIS Conference, and
Promotion;
-
declarations
of interest from the members for functions in euroCRIS have been registered and
a first election procedure proposed;
-
the
European Commission has been contacted in order to examine their participation
in the Program Committee for euroCRIS 2002 and to seek continued interest and
support and proper positioning of euroCRIS activities.
Furthermore,
the first 10 issues of the euroCRIS Newsletter appeared and a survey was
conducted. The domain name www.eurocris.org has been registered.
Other promotional and technical matters have been postponed until
decision-making by this meeting.
The
members agree that, in view of the ‘political’ developments (European Research
Area) and the booming developments in ICT, the platform should become more active;
but there is a debate whether or not working in a more formal, structured
setting would be the solution.
Considerations
for operating in a more structured setting are:
-
distribution
of workload by organising the work in task groups; obtaining commitments of
members to duties and backing by their parent organisations (‘getting jobs
done’);
-
more
visibility and attractive power for potential new members by operating as a
professional association as well as obtaining a higher professional and
scientific level;
-
obtaining
a professional status also in a political-strategic sense: ‘network of
excellence’;
-
need
for resources and fund raising capacity.
Considerations
not to formalise euroCRIS are that this will not alleviate the problem of
inactivity of people (a formal organisation might even alienate people), there
is a risk of a new form without underlying content and a formal structure is
not necessary for fund raising: consortia of platform members may be formed
where partners represent their own institutions as legal entities.
In this
meeting agreement has to be reached on a definite text of the mission statement
of euroCRIS, the type of organisation best suited to achieve the goals and the
concomitant procedures.
The draft
long and short versions of the charter were compared. The long charter is based
on the first draft by Eric Zimmerman and the statutes of the Committee for Data
on Science and Technology (CODATA) and All European Academies (ALLEA). The most
striking differences between the two are the types of membership, election and
voting procedures – both as regards right to decide by the meeting and detail
of elaboration – and terms of office of executives. Both versions have to be
harmonized for use as legal and public document.
The
discussion items for the afternoon were summarized as follows:
1.
Mission
(general mission statement and objectives)
2.
Type
of organisation (platform of experts, professional association, formal legal
entity)
3.
Constitutional
matter (geographical scope, types of membership, system of fees, board, task
groups)
4.
Procedures (elections, terms of office,
voting)
5.
External
communication, promotion and other matters.
A
presentation was given of the results of a reader survey on euroCRIS News,
conducted a couple of days before the meeting.
The
answers to the items of content, section names, order of content, format and
length were all positive to very positive. The opinion on publication frequency
is neutral (11 just right, 9 too much). Nearly all items are read by most
respondents, whereas project funding is less favoured (7 of 16). Content
lacking appears to be membership input, CRIS profiles and their innovations,
information on CRIS related information systems and shared experiences/best
practices. Use of graphics is not a problem.
The general
reader comments are very illustrative and give some clues for forthcoming
issues.
Along with
the conclusions of the editor, the main conclusions of the meeting are:
-
move
over to a monthly frequency with the same length and publish a special edition
when appropriate;
-
membership
input may be stimulated by a readers’ corner, interesting URL links and
periodical reports from the task groups;
-
provide
the possibility to (un)subscribe: euroCRIS News serves both the members and
external interested people;
-
we do
not need a special editorial board; the Promotion TG may take over this task;
-
euroCRIS
News can also be seen as a promotion medium and may serve as an additional tool
to draw attention to the CRIS 2002 Conference.
2.2 20011101 1100-1145 CERIF Task Group: Chair: Keith Jeffery; Rapporteur: Jens Vindvad
2.2.1 Report from workshop
By Keith Jeffery
CERIF standard has problem with classification of publications. The conclusion from the workshop is that we need to do more work on the CERIF standard especially with respect to:
- Attributes
- Classification value
- Classification scheme
The workshop was very dynamic workshop and had very advanced thinking. We also discovered that the CERIF standard have to be straitening out.
2.2.2 Changes proposed by UIB
By Anne Asserson
Anne gave an overview of what they are doing at University of Bergen (UIB). UIB use the publication part of the model, and are primary concerned with results.
Today UIB have implemented annual report mechanism. The system deliver data to internal research strategic reports, and to statistics and report for the Ministry of Church, Education and Research.
UiB haven’t started with projects yet. They have planed to start with registration of projects.
The current model doesn’t work well for UIB, and UiB has proposed a change in the model. Anne gave a presentation of the proposed change in the model, and stressed that she wanted to keep the basic structure of the model.
With reference to the workshop 31 October, it is clear that the issue of results and publications has to be worked out.
2.2.3 Work on the CERIF model done at TUWien
By Andrei S. Lopatenko
The CERIF model is implemented at TUWien, Oracle is used as database server. It seems to be some contradictions in the CERIF model. In the implementation process they have found several errors. Suggestions to solve the errors have been announced. The suggestions may be specific for Oracle. At TUWien they have developed at method for collecting information form other CRIS-systems via Internet. The method is a web crawler who simulates users behaviour. Metadata is stored and used search and access full data record at each local CRIS-system.
With reference to the workshop 31 October Andrei suggested that we should:
- Make CERIF more attractive
- Have semantic web-solution for CRIS
He also had suggestion for CERIF extensions and with reference to the workshop 31 October suggested that we should develop the following guidelines:
- How to implement the system at whole
- How to exchange data in XML, CVS (legacy)
- How to use custom vocabularies but leave the system CERIF compatible
A EU Project Proposal CERIF-SW was also presented.
2.2.4 Work on the CERIF at CLRC
By Keith Jeffery
A task group at RAL was given the objectives to make a data model that could handle most of the management information and take care of the workflow. It is at goal that most of the old paper forms should disappear.
The model the task group ended with is very similar to the CERIF data model. The main difference is that the model has four basic entities and not three. The new entity was responsibility. However, the group is considering modelling this as a relation between base entities so conforming to CERIF.
2.2.5 Discussion/acceptance of the new CERIF data model
From the presentation and discussion it is clear that the CERIF model needs to be worked on. The following areas need to be addressed (not an exclusive list):
- Contradictions in the model
- Vocabulary
- The meaning of wordings, definitions
- Publication issue
- Multimedia
- Guidelines and practical implementations
- DAML and OIL
The euroCRIS meeting asked the CERIF task group to work with all the questions and come back to the next meeting with suggestions.
2.3 20011101 1145-1230 CRIS2002 Organisation : Chair|: Wolfgang Adamzcak; Rapporteur: Wolfgang Adamzcak
Budget is estimated to be about 90.000 EURO including staff, material, rooms, equipment, catering etc. Sources of income will be fees, sponsoring and own resources of University of Kassel and Social Science Information Centre, Bonn. For about 30.000 EURO will be made a proposal at German Funding Institution DFG.
Conference Layout of CRIS 2002 can be seen on attachment ANNEX CRIS2002. On Thursday and Friday there is at the morning and at the begin of sessions in the afternoon and on Saturday morning reserved space for keynote-speakers. Following keynote-speakers can take place up to three parallel sessions of paper presentations and workshops. Programme Committee will look how to handle it after call for papers is finished.
There will be organised quota of rooms at hotels in Kassel up to the end of June 2002. Prices will be from 50 to 100 EURO. Because of art exhibition Documenta no longer reservation of rooms will be possible. But you can make individual reservation at any time at any hotel in Kassel.
Transportation will be very simple, because most of participants will arrive at Frankfurt Airport. By train you can come all two hours directly via fast speed train to Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe. All other hours you have to go by regional trains to Frankfurt Central Station. There you can change to fast speed trains. Persons who are coming from Northern Europe may fly to Hamburg Airport. By airport-bus they can go to Hamburg Central Station to change to fast speed trains to Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe each hour.
At http://www.bahn.de you can find travel-service of German railway to choose trains by your individual demands.
Railway station Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe is twenty minutes to go by tram to reach University of Kassel. Most of hotels are in the same distance (or nearer). Included in conference fees will be tickets for public traffic in Kassel.
Facilities for conference are situated at the northern part of Kassel, five minutes to go to be in the centre of Kassel (http://www.uni-kassel.de/standorte/hopla/ and http://www.uni-kassel.de/standorte/imap3/hopla/). Lecture halls and exhibitions, rooms for workshops, Computer Centre and refectory (Mensa) for lunch is to go three minutes. (Besides campus there are many pubs.)
Social programmes will be depend of getting (enough) money. There could be a speakers dinner at Wednesday evening, a coming together at Thursday evening (http://www.gleis1.de/) and a formal congress dinner at Friday (http://www.kloster-haydau.de/). It is a planned to finish conference at Saturday afternoon with a visit of Documenta (http://www.documenta.de/). Many information about Kassel you can find at http://www.kassel.de/
Conference fees will be 250 EURO for
registration until June 30, 2002, 300 EURO for registration afterwards.
2.4 20011101 1330-1415 CRIS2002 Programme : Chair|: Wolfgang Adamzcak; Rapporteur: Wolfgang Adamzcak
Annemarie Nase presented 4th
draft of call for papers (see attachment), were you can find most information
about Programme Committee, Organising Committee and all the other things.
Conference will last from August 29 -
31, 2002 in Kassel, Germany. Organisers of conference are
University of Kassel and Social Science Information Centre, Bonn, in
co-operation with euroCRIS. All information about conference you will find at
http://www.eurocris.org/CRIS2002.
It
was further discussed conference mission and conference topics. Two different
titles were discussed. It was decided that title of conference should be
“Gaining Insight from Research Information”
Contributions
to be made should be:
a) Papers in plenary sessions
b) Workshops
c) Poster sessions and presentations as part of an exhibit
All abstracts should be submitted by
February 15, 2002. All accepted papers and invited talks will be published
electronically and will be available during and after the conference at the
above mentioned Internet platform of CRIS 2002. Wolfgang will discuss whether
electronic publication, printing by demand and printed proceedings can be made
to an affordable amount by kassel university press.
Timetable looks as follows
February
15, 2002
Final
deadline for abstracts submissions
March
22, 2002
Notification
regarding acceptance of submissions
April
15, 2002
First
programme announcement
April
22, 2002
Call
for participation
May
03, 2002
Deadline
for full papers in plenary sessions,
8-10 pages (no more than 18,000 characters)
End
of June, 2002
Notification
of acceptance of full papers
June
30, 2002
Last
day of early bird participation registration
July
31, 2002
First
list of participants
August
29 – 31, 2002
Conference in Kassel, Germany
After discussion and nod of approval there remained two things to be solved:
· To spread call for papers as the first announcement of conference very widely it is necessary to send Annemarie Nase (nase@bonn.iz-soz.de) addresses of persons/institutions to be interested in topics of conference. Best is to give e-mail addresses or list of them. 10.000 printed copies will be available too!
· To make a good conference we need keynote-speakers. They should be able to present new, important and interesting facts relating to conference topics. Keynote-speakers are important for funding of conference too to show significance of the event. Recommendation for persons should be made to Wolfgang (adamczak@uni-kassel.de) or any other member of Programme committee.
2.5 20011101 1415-1500 Planning: Structure and Elections : Chair: Marga van Meel; Rapporteur: Keith Jeffery
Mission: after discussion of both ‘long’ and ‘short’ charter versions Harrie Lalieu and Keith Jeffery were tasked with producing for the next day a new mission.
Purpose: after discussion of both ‘long’ and ‘short’ charter versions Harrie Lalieu and Keith Jeffery were tasked with producing for the next day a new set of objectives.
Voting: After announcing that the Planning Committee had agreed by a majority of 3:1 to go ahead with voting at this meeting, discussion turned on voting members. It was agreed that registration-fee paying members could be institutional or individual, and that institutional could mean any organisational unit within an institution or the institution itself. Voting is by email, each registered member has one vote.
2.6 20011101 1530-1700 Planning: Future of euroCRIS : Chair: Marga van Meel; Rapporteur: Keith Jeffery
All agreed euroCRIS should move from a platform of experts to be a professional association, moving onwards towards a legal entity. The scope is international, with a distinction between full (European) members and associated or affiliate members. Europe is defined as that which the EU regards as Europe (including states approaching membership of the EU). Fees are 200 Euro (institutional), 100 Euro (individual) per annum. The electorate shall be all euroCRIS registered members. The Board will consist of a President, Secretary and Treasurer together with leaders of Task Groups. Task Groups have no limits on membership among euroCRIS Members and elect their leader. All terms of office are 2 years starting (officially) in January 2002. Elections will be held at the Autumn meeting preceding the January when new officers are required. Re-election is possible.
2.7 20011102 0900-1030 National CRISs : Chair: Anne Asserson; Rapporteur: Soeren Hovmand
ARAMIS/Switzerland
The Swiss CRIS was established in 1996
with the mandate of the Parliament and Federal Council. Among primary goals are
transparency on financial flows, coordination of research, R+D statistics and
being the national point of reference for CRIS. The ARAMIS organization is in
that respect doing consultancy work for other Swiss CRIS. Their software is
made readily available to other Swiss CRIS.
Delivery of data is compulsory for all
services of Federal Administration as well as the public funding agencies. It
is basically related to funding. Data is entered either with the ARAMIS
software (client-server) or being imported from local databases and
loaded/harmonized in a central database.
A call for tender has been made on the
development of an XML import interface.
Among considerations are solving the multi-linguality issue , simplifying the
user interface/cataloguing module, the development of a thinner client in
Internet technology and personification of the user interface. The present
centralized model is being reconsidered as well.
Key issues are data quality and political
backing.
Aramis is in operation since October 1998.
TUWIEN/Austria
Currently they are working on a project (AURIS-Multimedia, see http://arge.tuwien.ac.at/) involving CERIF 2000 based on ORACLE. Andrei´s software is transforming the CERIF 2000 data into the Resource Description Framework (RDF) which might be useful later, for the future semantic web. An RDF-based information retrieval solution is being tested by Andrei.
Further, more conventional
research information retrieval methods are shown by a new prototype (see
http://auris.tuwien.ac.at). 1. The Meta Search interface is a gateway to
different Austrian databases on research. Results are collected on the fly in a
list of hits during one search run. Presently tests are running with
dissertations, patents, university and other databases from funding
institutions like CORDIS. The service is not yet in real operation but works
already. 2. The mnoGoSearch fulltext
search engine is used to register and index research relevant web pages + sites
in Austria. The current challenge is to find strategies to extract from
different databases the most research relevant URLs as new web pages for the
mnoGoSearch spider to be full text indexed.
SRIS/Scotland
Scottish Research Information System is
funded by Scottish Higher Education
Funding Council with the purpose of commercializing research. The software
eXcelon is used for managing the XML formatted records. The record types are in
hierarchical order institution, faculty, department, research group, researcher
and publications. 17 universities have joined and the database holds at present
approx. 20.000 records - mostly
publications. A module for the universities to update is now going in to operation.
Next step will be concentrating on project information. The database will be
launched November 26th.
SICRIS/Slovenia
Developed and maintained by the Institute
of Information Science. It was remodelled in 1998 almost completely based on
CERIF 2000 and contains organisations, researchers and projects. Linking to
COBISS the database of publications has been implemented - thereby making bibliographies on the fly.
The software solution is a sql server database developed by the Institute of
Information Science. SICRIS is the national CRIS of Slovenia, approx 88% of the content being in English
as well. It is intended to include non public research. Other future considerations are research
reporting and the inclusion of Slovenian researchers working abroad. Reporting
to the database is related to funding. The updating is done on the basis of
focal points on the institutions involved.
IWETO/Belgium
The Flemisch database holds information on research teams, projects, international cooperation, expertise/consultancy and equipment. Person has been introduced, in line with CERIF2000's basic concept.
The
production database is located inside the firewall and the searchable part
outside. The search interface includes both search and browse as well as basic
and advanced search. A search in one type of information can be carried on to
other information types just by selecting those other types.
Geert introduced QlikView - a tool for
compilation, analysis and presentation of data. More information about the
software can be obtained from www.qliktech.com
2.8 20011102 1100-1130 euroCRIS and ERA : Chair: Harrie Lalieu; Rapporteur: Alfreda Regout
a)
ERA & EU-Commission
ERA (European Research Area) is a new concept of the EU-Commission which affects also research funding. The ultimate aim is to increase the impact of European research efforts by strengthening the coherence of research activities and policies conducted in Europe. This has to be achieved by a joint effort by the EU, its Member States and research stakeholders. Fragmentation and compartmentalisation should come down. The Framework Programmes have to a large extent been additional to the national programmes: a better integration of national activities and European intergovernmental co-operation initiatives is necessary.
Networking of centres of excellence is amongst the key objectives. ERA's philosophy is expected to bear - at least in some way - on the 6th Framework Programme (proposals 2002) already.
More about ERA :
* website
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/area.html
*documentation and progress
http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/era-debate/cec.htm
http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/home.html
euroCRIS will take ERA into account when
framing its own strategies and actions. Four Directorates of DG Research are
dealing with an aspect of ERA: which partner(s) best to choose? Directorate B – ERA: Structural Matters,
including a.o. the Units of National research policies, Centres and networks of
excellence and Research infrastructures looks the most appropriate. An option
for euroCRIS to explore would be recognition as a Network/centre of excellence.
Up to 900 million EURO have been earmarked for ERA infrastructure, including
also “ ‘immaterial’ infrastructures such as collections, protected biotopes,
clinical centres of investigation, libraries and obervatories”. Harrie Lalieu
and Keith Jeffery will explore potential avenues and propose a line of action.
b)
CERIF
euroCRIS has taken over CERIF activities. The proposition is to leave the
CERIF-site on the CORDIS server (excellent visibility) and have a copy on our
own server.
c)
ERGO
The pilot will not be maintained. The general view is to keep it accessible, as a historical achievement, on the EU-server. It will be referenced from www.eurocris.org
ERIS
and euroCRIS' involvement
· ERIS
Pitfalls as learned from ERGO en CORDIS should be avoided: centralisation, overconcentration on the needs of the Commission. Participants/database producers must have an active role to play. ERIS conclusions about a distributed architecture are in line with the general feeling.
· euroCRIS's position vis à vis further implementation
Technically, to win the contract, one has to be a consortium. As euroCRIS will not have corporate status, interested members will have to join a bidding consortium in their own capacity as a legal entity. RAL is interested - so are software houses, networks of excellence in the field of IT, libraries ... Solon too has a right to bid. One consortium grouping major actors (if achievable) will be the best way forward. euroCRIS has an important asset: data.
· Task group ERIS
Define plausible timing, vision on ERIS (incl. architecture), position of members (will we constitute ourselves as a kind of consortium before the call goes out?), actions (technical input & expertise given the short notice for this type of calls).
2.9 20011102 1130-1200 ERIS: User Survey: Chair: Helen Baird; Rapporteur: Beat Sottas
Solon
Consultants were mandated to evaluate ERIS. See report of Keith. The methodology chosen was a user survey by
questionnaires, carried out in EU member states. It was targeted rather on the
policy level (government, deciders, agencies) than the researchers themselves.
180 questionnaires were distributed. 103 were returned (= approx 60% responded)
The report
is not yet available, but members of the CRIS platform present in Abingdon were
given a preliminary presentation of the results. Helen Baird gave a very
comprehensive and dense overview of the topics asked and the responses given.
Out of the many slides, the following results are of general interest:
-
There
are many ways and channels to find information about research and technology.
Especially the professionals on the deciding makers‘s level, e.g. those in
charge of programmes or policies, know how to get informat ion. They would not
necessarily check on a centralised system. It seems that there is a very good
information flow with respect of EU funding opportunities.
-
The
languages present an almost unsurmountable barrier and they lead to a
marginalisation of those countries and publications which are not common (e.g.
Greek). The Internet or a centralised database do not help in this respect.
-
Among
the points that make a system attractive, the following points were mentioned:
-news service
-information about organizations
-automated services, e.g. summaries
-contacts with others
Finally,
there was little discussion. For an in-depth discussion it would be necessary
to have the full report. Keith Jeffrey
aimed at getting a copy of the slides or the full report. It would then be
published on the euroCRIS Website.
2.10 20011102 1200-1230 ERIS: Experts Analysis : Chair: Kay Renfrew; Rapporteur: Beat Sottas
Mandate and Methodology
This study
was commissioned by the EU commission. It aimed at elucidating the potential
use of ERIS. Important criteria were effectiveness, usability, potential for
the future, economic aspects. It was
carried out with a method called „Analytical Hierarchical Process“ (AHP). It is
based on the software package called „Expert Choice“. In AHP, respondents are
confronted to pairs of possibilities given: options, judgments on statements,
comparisons, decisions.
The sample
of the user study was constituted by government officials, academies, research
councils, policy makers, consultants, external bodies as well as IT people from
Scottish universities. The qualification of the respondents and the quality of
the responses received are satisfactory. As for the representiveness of the
results it was acknowledged that there is a bias towards policy makers.
Results
Out of the
many and detailed results, the following points are important:
1.
The
acceptance is placed higher than e.g. economic aspects, effectiveness,
perspectives for the future, usability or other
2.
A site
should be available to all languages of EU member states
3.
Distributed
data bases are the preferred structure – reluctance with respect to
centralization
4.
Information
has to be arranged according to subjects
5.
With
respect to the acceptance, a strategy has to be developed which is somewhere in
the middle between a system imposed and a system which is acceptable to all.
6.
The
basic idea should be to start with something simple which may be completed and
extended later.
Important issues of the discussion
-
Inquiries
should also cover the various national services.
One of the consultants explained that had been done in the first work package.
The commission wanted to start with something already existing and did not want
to start at zero
-
Issues
of the gateways: A general web gateway is not specific enough to policy makers
One need to have appropriate access and information available in languages
which are widespread
-
Separate
EU database yes or no : the general opinion was not to build a separate EU
database, e.g. not to continue ERGO experience but to integrate existing
systems ; however, it was argued that there are many problems remaining with
respect to semantics and definitions although the ERGO pilot has shown its
feasability
-
One of
the major issues is that member states and several categories of users (eg.
policy makers or decision makers in government and research councils) are fed
up with the diversity websites. There is an urgend need for a one stop
shop.
Timetable
a)
In a
next step Solon Consultants will set up the recommendations
b)
They
will be submitted to member states
c)
A call
for tender will be launched in may 2002 at earliest
probably in parallel with the 6th framework programme
Consequences and starting-point for euroCRIS
Harrie
explained the institutional setting and the positions of some key actors in
order to show the potential chances of euroCRIS. Due to the interest of some
persons close to deciding actors it is concluded that there is a fairly good
perspective, especially since ERIS is owned by DG research. It would be worse
under the auspices of DG innovation which owns CORDIS and which became more reluctant
recently.
Keith
sketched the problem of euroCRIS in the current setting. Given the complex
situation and the lacking strategy at decision making level he explained the
options for positions to adopt against ERIS.
The
conclusion for the most promising way is as follows:
- The
contract for ERIS should look like a broad European consortium
-
Partners
should be private companies, digital libraries, euroCRIS as a network of
excellence, ERCIM
-
Experiences gained in national CRIS could be integrated and valued through all
channels mentioned above, depending on the structures euroCRIS members have
access. euroCRIS as a network of excellence would act independently, according
to decisions taken in the board and the meetings.
There is a
shared vision to proceed according to the strategy proposed by Keith.
2.11 20011102 1330-1400 Code of Good Practice : Chair: Andrei Lopatenko; Rapporteur: Anne Asserson
In fact it was decided to postpone this session and use the time for euroCRIS Management. The reason was that with CERIF2000 the Code of Good Practice will require substantial revision. This is being considered by the CERIF Task Group.
2.12 20011102 1400-1500 euroCRIS Management : Chair: Marga van Meel; Rapporteur: Anne Asserson
It was agreed that actions were underway as follows:
(a) Newsletter: to be managed by the External Communications (formerly PR) Task Group with a monthly issue;
(b) euroCRIS website: to be moved to secretariat and all references to be of form ww.euroCRIS.org/<whatever> where <whatever> could be CERIF or CRIS2002 etc. and should include <meta>…</meta> tags to improve visibility. Andrei Lopatenko had already submitted the site to multiple search engines.;
(c) Brochure: to be managed by the External Communications (formerly PR) Task Group;
(d) Portal: task for the ERIS Task Group;
Voting then took place:
The Board will have the positions of President, Secretary and Tresurerer. There were only one candidate for each position. The candidate did not participate in the voting. The Board was elected for 2 years starting officially 1st January 2002 (but in praqctice starting immediately). 12 members participated in the voting, one person abstained.
Results:
President, Keith Jeffery, 11 votes
Secretary, Marga Van Meel, 11 votes
Treasurer Walter Niedermayer, 11 votes.
The leaders of the task groups will be elected from the members within the groups and will be members of the Board.
2.13 2011102 1530-1630 Task Groups Future Plans : Chair: Marga van Meel; Rapporteur: (each Task Group Leader)
The Task Group members present met ion their groups and proposed a workplan. This will be published on the webpages of each Task Group and the Secretary will then integrate them all into one euroCRIS overall workplan to allow optimisation of meetings (colocation) and timing.
2.14 20011102 1630-1645 Close :
The meeting was closed formally with expressions of how good the meeting had been and nice comments about the venue. The next meeting is planned for Brussels June 17-19 2002.
3. Conclusions
All commented on a productive meeting with strong discussions but a spirit of agreement and moving forward.
4. Actions
The actions were all either:
(a) within Task Groups (Conference, CERIF, External Communications, ERIS) and will be published on their webpages;
(b) within the Planning Group (finalise charter);
(c) within the new executive (ensure progress)
5. ANNEX CRIS2002
5.1.1.1 Conference Layout CRIS 2002
|
Time |
Thursday, 29 th |
Friday, 30 th |
Saturday, 31 th |
|||||||||||||
|
9.00 |
Opening |
|
CP |
X |
CCX |
Keynote Speaker |
CP |
X |
CC |
Keynote Speaker |
CP |
X |
CCX |
|||
|
10.30 |
Keynote Speaker |
|
|
|
Speaker 8 |
Workshop 3 |
|
|
|
Speaker 15 |
Workshop 5 |
|
|
|
||
|
11.00 |
Speaker 1 |
Workshop 1 |
Speaker 9 |
Speaker 16 |
||||||||||||
|
11.30 |
Break |
|
Final Session |
|||||||||||||
|
11.45 |
Speaker 2 |
Speaker 10 |
||||||||||||||
|
12.15 |
Speaker 3 |
Speaker 11 |
Lunch Break |
|||||||||||||
|
13.00 |
Lunch Break |
Lunch Break |
||||||||||||||
|
14.00 |
Visit to documenta
|
|||||||||||||||
|
14.30 |
Keynote Speaker |
|
Keynote Speaker |
Workshop 4 |
||||||||||||
|
16.00 |
Speaker 4 |
Workshop 2 |
Speaker 12 |
|||||||||||||
|
16.30 |
Speaker 5 |
Speaker 13 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Break |
|
||||||||||||||
|
17.15 |
Speaker 6 |
Speaker 14 |
||||||||||||||
|
17.45 |
Speaker 7 |
Closing of session |
||||||||||||||
|
18.15 |
Closing of session |
|||||||||||||||
|
18.30 |
|
|
Departure for Haydau Monastery |
|
||||||||||||
|
20.00 |
Coming together |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
