91/950523

Presentation by Maurits van der Graaf

Dear colleagues,
Welcome to this first meeting of what 1 hope will be a fruitful platform to exchange ideas, experiences and to co-operate with the Current Research Databases we represent.

First some remarks on the organisation of this meeting. The NBOI has sent invitation letters to all interdisciplinary, national or international Current Research database producers it did know of. Now 1 am delighted to see representatives present of CRIS databases from all over Europe including:

Austria
Belgium and Flanders
Denmark
the European Commission
Finland
Germany
Italy
the Netherlands
Norway
The United Kingdom

We miss in this stage the Spanish, the Portuguese who have to our knowledge up and running databases. We have also invited the French and the Swedish, who both are in the phase of setting up a CRIS database. So far we did not receive any response to our letters, but I would like to encourage these parties to participate in the future activities of the Platform.

1 would like to underscore the urgency of international co-operation between Current Research database producers. 1 became particularly aware of the need for international collaboration when 1 received the results of our first quantitative market research on the Dutch Current Research Database. Many scientists indicated they were interested in the contents of our database, but only on a international basis. Only a very small percentage of the respondents were interested in Dutch research only. At that moment - September

1993 - out database contained only Dutch research data and we were about to start a major promotion campaign for our database in the Netherlands. With these results in hand I had many contacts during the conference on Current Research Information Systems in December 1 993. It appeared that the NBOI could start a co-operation with our Flemish colleagues very quickly - the language was the same, our formats were compatible and our classifications scheme could be automatically converted. This resulted in an exchange of project information between NOD and IWETO, and the NBOI was able to merge the Flemish project information with the Dutch in April 1994. The next step in this search to fulfil the needs of our users with international data was to load the CORDIS project data onto our system. We received the license to do this and could bring the data online in November 1994, thus giving our users access to these data while using the same interface as for the Dutch/Flemish data. In April 1995 we loaded also in a separate file the CRIB database, after negotiating a license with Cartermill, which also includes an exchange of information.

1 realise that such loading of project data from other database producers is a quick and in some ways dirty way towards an European Current Research Information System. We take shortcuts with regard to the different formats by loading these data in separate files, and circumvent in this way also the language differences. However, it is obvious to the NBOI that quick action is necessary because our users want international data and if we do not provide them, the raison d´etre of the Dutch database is in danger.


91/950523

With other words: we believe that the Dutch Current Research database has only a right to exist if we provide next to the Dutch data also international research data. If we do not deliver this service, the usage of the Dutch data will stay at a low level, our information deliverers (the universities and research institutes) will loose interest in delivering comprehensive and actual data, and we will enter a negative spiral.

I think a SWOT-analysis of our position as Current Research Database Producers should be made.

I like to make a start with this as follows:

STRENGTHs


WEAKNESSes -

Opportunities


THREATS

In conclusion: I feel strongly that a co-operation on a international scale between national, interdisciplinary Current Research database producers is not a luxury, but a necessity. Therefore 1 hope that today we will start with the proposed Platform and that in the not so long future this ' will lead towards a European Current Research' Information System, which will fulfil the needs of many users in- and outside the scientific community.



88/950529

First meeting of the European Platform for Current Research Producers.

l. Opening
See attached speech by Mr. Van der Graaf.

2. Introduction

Mrs. Campbell
Mrs. Campbell is the managing director of Cartermill International who publishes the Current Research in Britain Database (CRIB- research projects from GB) and BEST (A British expertise database).
Mrs. Campbell is interested in the idea of a European Platform, however she wonders what exactly the difference is between this meeting and the Conference CRIS '95.
Such a platform should focus on a user driven approach, market segmentation, product-market combinations, distribution channels and on the development of a publishing philosophy.
Mrs. Campbell is accompanied by two colleagues, Mrs. Stirton and Mrs. Hubbard, Mrs. Stirton is responsible for gathering expertise data throughout Europe for BEST Europe, working together with national/local organisations. Mrs. Hubbard is project manager for the CRIB-database.

Mr. Bellardinelli
Mr. Bellardinelli is responsible for the CORDIS information service.
He is very interested in a European Platform.
The CORDIS-database contains research funded by the European Commission, which is 5 to 10% of the total European Research effort.
The European wants to distribute this information within the European Union as well as outside the Union as wide as possible. The European Council has decided to make the National CRIS Databases accessible through CORDIS via gateways. An expert group will soon be set up to organise this. CORDIS is now disseminated via ECHO and via CD~ROM, but welcomes other distribution possibilities f.e. via NBOI.
Mr. Bellardinelli thinks that the main obstacle in creating a European CRIS is the language.

He is also concerned by the absence of a representative of France in this group.

Mr. Niedermayer
Mr. Niedermayer represents the FODOK-database from Austria. This database exists 1 0 years and collects its information from the 1 8 Austrian universities and other science research institutes. Mr. Niedermayer stresses the need for a wide distribution of CRIS-data to make the effort of collecting/production worthwhile. Therefore he is very much interested in a European Platform.

Mr. Behrens
Mr. Behrens is also very much interested in a European Platform, however he stresses the need of
efficiency. There are in his opinion already many conferences, working parties etc.


Mr. Hovmund
Mr. Hovmund represents the Danish database DANDOK. He is interested in a European Platform in order to open DANDOK to international users via gateways. He is also interested in a simplified classification. Finally he states that in his opinion the platform has to be efficient.


88/950529

Mr. Slottved
Mr. Slottved represents the research database of the university of Copenhagen, which covers more than 50% of the DANDOK database. He is planning to expand his research information system. He brings up three problems: - the purpose of CRIS-databases is still unclear. He himself see the value in the interdisciplinary information. - in his view CERIF is a classification scheme and not a format the language problem

Mr. Gubberud
Mr. Gubberud is representing the National Research Database of Norway. The database contains 60.000 items, in Norwegian and English language. His goal for the Platform is closer European co-operation.

Mr. Hauge
Mr. Hauge is the manager of a project to develop a standardised system for all Norwegian universities. He is also taking part in a study of CRIS systems is the EFTA countries. He like to see the CERIF standard extended to include a format for research results, expertise information and multimedia documents. This was put forward in proposal for the European Commission, but not accepted.

Mr. Cantarella
Mr. Cantarella is representing the INVENT database, the national CRIS of Belgium. The progress of this database has been hampered by the federalisation process in Belgium. However, now he plan to go online with the INVENT database within a year. He makes the following remarks: - it is difficult to make researchers interested in using the database and at the same time to give their research information. Also there are problems with implanting the CERIF standard. He is very interested in the Platform, but regrets the absence of Mr. Maghiros of the Q2 project, which he thinks is very important and promising.

Mrs. Regout
Mrs. Regout represents the Flemish Current Research Database IWETO. The IWETO database collects information from the Flemish universities, schools of higher education and science institutes. The IWETO database is available via a dial up-connection and has good coverage of the Flemish research. However, the quality of the data still needs attention. IWETO covers apart from project information also information on expertise, high tech equipment, and international co-operation. She mentions that an important target group are the science policy makers, who need financial data as well.

Mrs. von Hertzen and Mrs. Koskiala
Mrs. von Hertzen and Mrs. Koskiaia arrived in the afternoon from Finland. Mrs. von Hertzen is representing NORDINFO, the Nordic Canal for Scientific Information, in order to see if these should be a role for NORDINFO in this Platform.
Mrs. Koskiala represents the Helsinki University of Technology. The Finnish Universities are setting up their own research information systems in an effort to build a decentralised, Finnish research information system.


Mr. Van der Graaf summarised the introductions. The platform is meant as a meeting of database producers, thus different from the conference, CRIS 95. Such a platform could form a more proactive attitude of database producers, instead of the present reactive attitude (such as towards the Q2 project, and other initiatives. Later the platform might lead towards an association of database producers.


88/950529

A general discussion started till the coffee break and centred around the following topics:


centralised versus decentralised
data collection
the mandate of the Platform
CERIF standard
Code of practice

The main argument on these topics are given below:
Centralised versus decentralised/ data collection
Mr. Slottved warns against the idea of a central European database. In his view such a database would collapse under its own weight. He pleads for a systems of linked databases throughout Europe. Mr. Hauge thinks also that central data collection is dying out. He foresees that the researchers will put their data into a local information system. As these data will be used by the funding organisation, the input of these data by the researchers ' is practically obligatory. Mr. Slottved agrees, but has problems in getting the money and manpower to set up such a system. Before the system is adequately filled with information, not many users will use the database - the chicken - egg problem. Mrs. Regout notes that her database has a good coverage because they pay the universities to collect on a per project description basis.
Mr. Van der Graaf stresses another approach to make information providers more co-operative. The NBOI started two years ago with the following strategy. Although the database was not comprehensive and up to date, the NBOI started a large promotion campaign to get more users and thus trying to make the information providers more interested tot delver their data. This approach-, was quite successful. Mrs. Campbell makes a distinction between database production and database distribution and agrees that the database production (ie data collection) should be decentralised. Mr Slotted: "as close to the source as possible".

Mandate of the platform

Mr. Bellardinelli thinks that the Platform should focus on change of opinion and finding ways of co-operation. He is for instance reluctant to have the Platform formulate a policy with regard to the CERIF standard. The platform should not formulate or influence policy. Other groups and mechanisms are already established for this purpose. Also it makes no sense form him as an EU employee to influence himself. After some discussions all attendees agreed that when the Platform reached a consensus on a certain topic, the individual members should try to influence f.e. the European Commission via the appropriate channels (f.e. their national representative in the CREST committee).

CERIF Standard

After some discussion it became clear that the Platform should not try to change the CERIF standard itself. The Platform can however be instrumental in studying the suitability and usability of the CERIF standard and in a later stage might suggest changes or adjustment to the CERIF standard to the appropriate organisations. The CERIF format was originally meant to harmonise the European CRIS databases. The CERIF format could be especially useful for data interchange between CRIS databases.

Code of practice

Mrs. Campbell suggests that the Platform could -also be instrumental in the development of a Code of practice of Current Research Database Producers. Dr. Behrens mentions an example of such a code of practice - for material science databases.

COFFEE BREAK


88/950529

After the coffee break the proposals with regard to the organisation, the objectives and the working methods of the Platform were discussed.

Objectives of the Platform

Mrs. Campbell remarks that she feels the objectives should be split into a mission statement, means and desired output. She suggests for the mission statement the following:
To overcome the barriers to the development and diffusion of European Current Research Information. Everyone agreed with this mission statement, however, some attendees pointed out that this statement does not implicate a move towards a centralised database.

Working methods of the Platform / means

In the original proposal by the NBOI three working methods were stated: l) exchange of ideas, experiences, information 2) joint studies - not funded and 3) joint studies - funded. There was no discussion on the first method, which could lead to a Code of Best Practice for Current Research Database Producers.

Mr. Bellardinelli commented on the possibility to study the CERIF standard. In his view this Platform should not make standards itself, as it is not a recognised standardising body. He feels that if the Platform undertakes studies on the CERIF standard, these should focus on the suitability and usability of the standard. In another comment Mr. Bellardinelli questioned the studies with funding, he thought that the idea was that members payed their own costs. Mr. Van der Graaf agrees with that, but here is meant that in a later stage eventually for larger studies financing could be sought from outside.

Desired output

There was discussion on whether or not desired output of the Platform should be formulated in this stage. Some attendees suggested as desired output increased co-operation, code of best practice, internationalisation and increased professionalism. Others pleaded not to define the desired output in this stage.

Organisation of the Platform

After lunch the organisation of the Platform was discussed. To encourage communication between the members of the Platform a special email-list was suggested. This will set up by the secretariat of the Platform. The idea of voluntary membership (everyone pays his or her own costs) was accepted by everyone. The secretariat of the Platform will circulate periodically among participants. This secretariat should not be too much work. After a remark of Mr. Niedermayer it was widely accepted that Europe has the geographical meaning and so includes not EU-countries. The NBOI will carry out the secretariat of the Platform for the first period. A 2 day-meeting of the Platform will be organised by the NBOI in Amsterdam 26-27 January 1996.

The rest of the afternoon was spent on discussing the possible topics for the meeting in January.
The list of possible topics was as follows:
- Database production/data collection /relation between the information provider and the database producer/ centralised - decentralised databases;
- marketing & market research/.diffusion philosophy;
- suitability and usability CERIF-standard;
- EU policy;
- co-operation models;
- code of practice;
- legal issues.


88/950529

On each of these topics some remarks were made:

Database production /data collection/relation between the information provider and the database

producer/centralised - decentralised databases:

Mr. Slotted stressed that in his view the databases should be located close to the researchers. He thinks that decentralised databases linked together will be the future. Mr. Van der Graaf saw difficulties with decentralised databases: there is no link between production and marketing so that it will be difficult to adjust the databases to user needs. Also decentralised databases often are free of charge: no transaction is taking place between user and producer so there will be no drive to improve the product. Mrs. Koskiala points out that in Finland they are in the process of setting up with 20 universities such a decentralised information system. Mr. Niedermayer states that in Austria a central database exist alongside decentralised databases. Mr. Van der Graaf concludes that this is topic worth discussing.

Marketing & market research

Mr. Hovmund remarks that DANDOK conducted a market research and followed this up with a promotion campaign, which led to an almost 1 00% increase of the users and usage. Mrs. Campbell adds that it is very difficult to translate market research results into action.

CERIF standard

Mr. Hauge would like to see an extension of the CERIF standard to include a format to describe intermediate results. Mr. Beliardinelli stated that a subset of CORDIS contains research results. Other attendees feel this a different matter and point out the fact that there are already many literature- and patent databases. Mr. Hovmund stresses the relation between projects and publications, which are both covered by DANDOK. The discussion turns to the classification of CERIF. Mr. Slottved stresses the need for a common international classification system. Mr. Van der Graaf states that only 3% of the users of the Dutch database use the classification for retrieval and therefore he feels that classification schemes are not so important. Mrs. Campbell remarks that delivery independent classifications (universal resource locator, SGML, HTML) become more and more important to help users to find information in the wealth of information available.

In the Austrian database of Mr. Niedermeyer the classification is used for an electronic SDI-service. He also states that his classification relates for approx. 50% with the CERIF classification.

Mr. Van der Graaf concludes with the following proposal: each database producers compares its format with the CERIF format and will send the results before the next meeting to the secretariat. The NBOI will compile the results and distribute these before the January meeting so that we can have a much more structured discussion.

EU-policy/ co-operation models

Mr. Bellardinelli emphasises the objective of the EU to spread research information as widely as possible and explains also the principle of subsidiary. Soon a working group of national representatives will be set up to discuss the possibility of access via CORDIS through gateways to national research databases in the second half of 1 995. Mr. Bellardinelli hopes that this groups could make use of the results of the Q2 project.

Code of practice

Dr. Behrens promises to send the NBOI a copy of the code of practice of the material science databases. The NBOI will distribute this further.

Legal issues

Mrs. Campbell draws the attention to three legal issues related to CRIS databases- electronic copyright, compulsory licensing and data protection.


88/950529

Mr. Bellardinelli asks about pricing policies of the present CRIS producers:

NBOI - asks fixed price in order to recover the distribution costs
IWETO - free of charge
Hauge - free of charge
Mr. Gubberud - free of charge
DANDOK - free of charge
Dr. Behrens - price ('pay as you go system') - but information providers gets one free password
Finland introduction
Mr. Niedermayer - part on WWW is free of charge for non profit organisations, a certain fee is asked for commercial users
Mrs. Koskiaia - some universities free, others charge
CRIB - commercial basis, differential pricing
CORDIS - free for online information, CDROM - price to recover distribution costs

CRIS


fou@ub.uib.no - 21. april 1997