BACK to the EuroCRIS Homepage

Vienna EuroCRIS Platform Meeting
1998, October 2&3
List of participants
Agenda of the Meeting

Minutes of the Meeting:

Friday, October 2:

9.30: Welcome by Mr. Walter Niedermayer

9.45: Introduction to the Meeting. Reflections on the objectives of the EuroCRIS Platform by Mr Jostein Helland Hauge, Secretary of EuroCRIS (Power Point Presentation)

10.00: Denmark’s Electronic Library. Introduction by Søren Hovmand.on overhead transparencies (Power Point Slides), pointing out the current situation and foreseen activities as regards

10.30: Relations between institutional and national current research information systems. The case of the Netherlands by Marga van Meel. Keywords are:

  • Discussion:
    •
    1. Eric Cantarella points out that data providers (universities) are paid for delivering information in Belgium
    2. Helmut Feichter addresses the problem of unstructured information on the Internet and thus the abundance of unused or doubled information
    3. Huntington Williams addresses the problem of identification of poor data quality of a lower system (NOD - OZIS)
    4. In this context, Fulvio Naldi comes to the conclusion that the administration of all available information is what the future will ask for. How do contributors want to describe themselves ? Information management. Responsibility of data.
    5. Sinikka Koskiala: How can we integrate all this: electronic publishing, definition of publication, legal deposit ?

    11.15 The dream of ELECTRA (ELECTronic Research Assistant) by Jostein Helland Hauge, which is designed to the needs:

  • Discussion:
    •
    1. Common echo: fantastic concept, why is it not reality ?
    2. Helmut Feichter: Researchers need a hint on what is possible, with that dream as a perspective. How to distribute an idea like this.
    3. Sinikka Koskiala: Hidden data only visible to individual researchers, a possibility to extract information like 'what have I done during the year (honors, talks given, CV).
    4. Fulvio Naldi: ELECTRA directly addresses researchers, it enforces communication to researchers. The work of the publisher changes: not collect or control, but manage all the researcher's data. 'You can provide YOUR information to your way, we present it in the big picture'.
    5. Sinikka Koskiala: Information on research collected, technology transfer and innovation activities from research and commercial applications, an 'Innovation Centre'. Constant contact with all of 'them'.

    11.45: The Code of Good (CRIS) Practice. Quo vadis? Introduction by Eric Canterella. His 'Comments on the Code of Good Practice' are:

  • Discussion:
    •
    1. Jostein Hauge: There was heavy involvement of Cartermill (Richard Cleary, who has now left Cartermill)
    2. Fulvio Naldi: The code has been utilized (for ERGO and CERIF). What can be updated ? There is a relationship between the CGP and current activities in ERGO, EuroCRIS and CERIF.
    3. Flaminia Ramos: CORDIS or the Comission resp. is responsible for maintenance. The Platform should only take the role of initiating the comission to promote things.
    4. Jostein Hauge: Platform people might keep it alive rather than CORDIS people
    5. CGP has to be well kept, but who ? No answer at this time.
    6. See Eric Cantarellas email after the Vienna meeting on this topic

    12.15: CRIS in the USA by Huntington Williams (COS Community of Science is a "non-profit organisation"). Online Presentation of the American Research Database and then discussing the issues:

    12.45: What do we want to achieve by the CRIS 2000 Conference in Helsinki? Introduction by Sinikka Koskiala. Short summary of the previous conferences topics:

  • The next conference will be held in Finland. The content will be defined/recommended/envisioned by the Platform, 'which way to go or not to go'. Ideas from the last conference, open contents of other conferences could be topics in Helsinki. Everyone is invited to send his ideas about the next CRIS conference in Helsinki via email to Sinikka Koskiala.

    Ideas provided by discussion:

    •
    1. Fulvio Naldi: like in Luxembourg on European level or widen the scope ? How are provision of CRIS services changing with new technologies ?
    2. Soeren Hovmand: specific things versus general things
    3. Marge van Meel: no parallel groups, small number of participants
    4. Sinikka Koskiala: define the scope of abstract presentation or limit it ?
    5. Fulvio Naldi: different kind of conference: very few speakers, several round tables for discussion and technical presentations discussion. Fulvio about CRIS conferences (CRIS 2000) more and more split between paper presentations /discussion and practical computer presentations, no parallel sessions about similar topics, scope was too wide, smaller rooms for interest groups, data collection and SGML, more end users experiences and ideas for improvements
    6. Soeren Hovmand: collaboration/statistics on databases
    7. Fulvio Naldi: participation and use of CERIF and ERGO is no matter for a conference, it is too specific and it stands somewhere
    8. Jostein Hauge: to broad a scope we had, smaller meetings. Practical scope - international level (USA, South America). Scope of the platform itself: similar conferences on a smaller scale before 2000.
    9. Walter Niedermayer: view of end users, researchers view, who provide data
    10. Fulvio Naldi: try to keep conference topic: editorial activities, help users with technical aspects
    11. Sinikka Koskiala then reads a letter from the Commission. It asks her to hold the CRIS 2000 Conference in Helsinki using the metapher of a Nut (to be cracked) which then will be an Apple (take a bite).

     

    Lunch

     

    14.00: The Icelandic CRIS database. Presentation by Thorvaldur Finnbjörnsson. Power Point Presentation highlighting the issues:

  • followed by a short discussion around these issues.
    •

    14.30: Is there a need for separate actions to stimulate CRIS co-operation with the Central and Eastern European Countries? Exchange of information.

    Dejan Dinevski presents the situation in Slovenia:

    Fulvio Naldi, on request of Jostein Hauge, then presents a short introduction to the DERPI-project. (Data Exchange on Research Projects and Institutions) Keywords are:

  • Discussion arising from this topic:
    •
    1. Jostein Hauge: Are the contacts to Eastern European Countries still there ?
    2. Fulvio Naldi: Political changes (Czech, former Yugoslavia) and changes in institutions representatives make it hard to maintain contacts, some few are there, they are working on this field.
    3. Jostein Hauge: 9 EE-Countries will be included in the 5th framework program: Slovenia Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Baltic, Slovakia, Rumania, PECO (at the beginning of 1999) not yet decided, look to http://www.cordis.lu/inco/home.html.
    4. Fulvio Naldi: There is little chance to involve some of them, due to the poor financial situation, there needs to be something like a 'national will'
    5. Dejan Dinevski: We have good contacts to Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia
    6. Fulvio Naldi: It is rather useless to simply 'put together' people in Luxembourg, pragmatic people can do things which are realistic. Proposal: Wait for a Call of Tender (INCO by 1999), then refresh contacts (focal point representatives) and build up a prototype for the new countries.

    15.00: Our legal context: Presentation of an overview by Jostein Helland Hauge (using Power Point slides), and discussion of ownership and copyright legislation/regulations in relation to the CRIS work area

  • Jacques Millet then presents the problems of Property Rights in France (Power Point Presentation) using transparencies:
  • They are very restrictive on any information system: All data processing must be declared explicitly, declarations (all electronic directories, web-sites, biographic lists, etc.) to be sent to a special organisation, authorisation is hard to get, else illegal.
  • To build a CRIS in France, you have to go a long way to be allowed to do so. Personal data, steps (all systems at the moment are 'illegal')
  • Researchers must be precisely informed, have access and may restrict use of data
  • Other limitations: Internet recommendations by a commission (never download, no extraction, no electronic capture). Limitation to French language. Thus sharing information outside France is subject to these limitations.
  • Putting together of an 'Internet Regulation Agency' for these issues
  • Adequate level of protection, harmonisation of regulations of each country with EU
    •
  • Discussion arising from this topic:
    •
    1. Jostein Hauge: The general level is the same in every country. Who has the provision of data definitely regulated ?
    2. Franz Holzer: It is like the Roman God Janus, with 2 heads looking into different directions: have all information and inform all, or none (like the secret service). On TU Graz the individual researchers agree on publishing data implicitly by updating it.
    3. Sinikka Koskiala: Copyright: be careful with that term (information about research, or information itself)
    4. Helmut Feichter: if thoroughly look, what is done is 'against' the law.
    5. Eric Cantarella: the property rights are on the provider's side, not on the DB-owners side.
    6. Alfreda Regout: Universities want to exploit information themselves.
    7. Jostein Hauge: What does one want to derive from a database ? There are lots of possible sources of conflict when providing information, though not on the 'legal' level.
    8. Alfread Regout: Universities have regulated that internally. Putting things on Web (contact information) is accepted.
    9. Eric Cantarella: There are some 'work-arounds' to avoid restrictions
    10. Sinikka Koskiala: In a register of laboratories, the laboratories themselves declare the contact person and details on expertise, so to avoid conflicts with personal protection rights. This was harmonized in Finland from the beginning.
    11. Jostein Hauge: The Web and Documentation Centres hold a lot of information. User rights are scaring.

     

    Saturday, October 3:

    9.00: The new Austrian Research Information System (AURIS): The history of the university umbrella project and the current data structure on overhead transparencies. Online Presentation by Franz Holzer .

    9.30: CRIS as a source for tracking science publication patterns by Fulvio Naldi (Power Point Presentation)

    10.00: Can we seriously hold the view that a CRIS is a mediation tool in its own right for users of research and research results? by Franz Holzer. Discussion of mediation and marketing strategies.

    11.00: Reports on new developments in the CRIS field in member states. Short contributions by Platform participants.

     

    12.00: Round table on the relevance and future activities of the EuroCRIS Platform Offers from members to run the Secretariat of EuroCRIS.

     

    CRIS