1. Repositories
for
research
information
management
Wolfram
Horstmann
CERIF-­‐CRIS
and
Repositories,
Brussels,
12/13-­‐oct-­‐2011

2. The
challenge
http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/?p=33681
Collaboration
of
researchers,
administration
&
librarians!

3. Why
CRIS
&
OA-­‐Repositories?
“Given
their
affinity,
achieving
interoperability
between
CRIS
and
OAR
is
desirable
and
will
benefit
all
parties
involved,
including
the
researchers.
A
joint
approach
will
avoid
double
input
and
management
of
redundant
data
as
well
as
redundant
services
and
processes
and
will
both
enhance
the
efficiency
and
quality
(mutual
enrichment)
of
the
services
offered
by
CRIS
and
OAR
to
their
users.”
January
2007:
Knowledge
Exchange
DEFF,
DFG,
JISC,
SURF
Exchanging
Research
Information
-­‐-­‐
Razum,
Simons
&
Horstmann
[>>
Text]

4. The
Task
• There
is
still
an
assumed
competition
between
CRIS
and
OARs
and
many
other
institutional
systems
• CRIS
and
OARs
should
join
forces
to
deliver
the
best
possible
services
• An
account
of
„Who
does
what
and
how?“
should
be
developed

5. Delineation:
Characteristics
• Current
Research
Information
Systems
CRIS
– administrative,
sensitive,
comprehensive,
integrative,
local,
analytic
|
administrators
• Open
Access
Repositories
OAR
– public,
file-­‐centric,
rights,
preservation,
globally
distributed
paradigm
|
librarians
• Bibliography
Management
System
BMS
– CV
oriented,
complete,
representative
|
researchers

6. Delineation:
Commonalities
• Bibliographic
Information
– Title,
Source,
Subject,
Keywords,
Rights,
Authorship…
• Affiliation
– Author
Identity,
Institute,
Organisational
Unit,
Research
Group,
Time
Frame…
• Project
Information
“short-­‐term
affiliation“
– Time
Frame,
Funder,
Participants,
Budgets…

7. Delineation:
Differences
• CRIS
more
local,
while
OARs
distributed
• CRIS:
Financial
information
– Budgets
of
projects,
staff
• CRIS:
Staff
information
– Employment
details,
costs
• OAR:
Full-­‐Text
Management
– Access
Rights,
Identifiers,
Preservation,
Compound
Objects
/
Research
Data
…

8. System
Habitat
• CRIS
and
OAR
potentially
– Financial
System
– Human
Resource
Management
– Facility
Management
System
– Campus
Management
System
– Bibliographic
Databases
• WoS,
Scopus,
ArXiV,
PMC,
IRs/BASE
– Authoritative
Data
Resources
/Disambiguation
• Vocabularies,
Ontologies,
ORCID/AuthorClaim
• Massive
common
interoperability
requirements

9. ‚Species‘
• CRIS
proper
– CERIF-­‐centric:
self
or
METIS,
PURE,
CONVERIS
– Integrating
with
institutional
HRM,
project
&
financial
systems
• OAR
proper
– DCES
,
MODS
etc
|
DSPACE,
E-­‐Prints,
Fedora
• BMS
intermediates
– Proprietary,
MODS:
DSPACE,
E-­‐Prints,
Invenio,
LUP,
etc.
• Aggregative
Approaches
– Sharing
and
re-­‐using
resources

10. A
CRIS
AVEDAS
AG,
CONVERIS
SYSTEM

11. An
OAR
ePrints
Southhampton

12. Further
Trends
in
OARs
• Extension
towards
BMS
/
Reporting
– Demand
for
authoritative
resources
increases
– Usage
of
vocabularies,
ontologies,
e.g.
SPAR
– Usage
of
web
services,
linked
data
– Personal
displays,
CV-­‐Systems
• Extension
towards
Research
Data
– Demand
for
collaboration
with
researchers
incresases
• Repositories
as
embedded
systems
– local
and
global
integration

13. Research
Data
&
Enhanced
Publications
http://www.ukpmc.co.uk

14. Semantic
Web
Approaches
OpenAIRE
and
KE
CRIS-­‐OAR
Interoperability
Project

15. Interim
Conclusion
• Neither
CRIS
nor
OARs
are
autonomous
– Rather
open,
interrelated
data
mgmt.
systems
• Any
individual
solution
will
be
different
– Depending
on
the
local
system
habitat
• Systems
level
not
the
correct
approach?
– Rather
consider
human
curation
responsibilities

16. Curation
processes
• Persons
– e.g.
Human
resource
office,
IT
department
(IDM)
• Finance
– e.g.
Finance
office
• Units
– e.g.
Facility/Campus
Management
• Projects
– e.g.
Research
office,
Researchers
• Bibliographic
Information
– e.g.
Library,
Researchers

17. The
curation
view
on
CRIS
&
OARs
• Treatment
of
systems
as
curation
tools
maintained
by
specialists
– Research
project
manager,
financial
officer,
staff
manager,
bibliography
specialist,
data
librarian,
web
content
manager,
identity
manager,
analyst
• No
requirement
to
build
integrated
IT-­‐
‚columns‘
– Rather
distributed
systems
view
– Reporting
as
distributed
queries
with
display
– Data
model
may
differ
in
systems,
while
entities,
properties
and
vocabularies
are
aligned
to
interoperate
on
the
aggregation/reporting
level

18. Conclusion
• Convergence
between
CRIS
and
OAR
– both
head
towards
aggregative
systems
– OARs
become
‚sensitive‘
e.g.
Bibliometrics,
Research
Data
– CRIS
become
public
e.g.
CV
displays,
full-­‐text
• Differences
there
to
stay
– Administrators
as
end-­‐users
for
CRIS
– Open
Access
as
committment
for
OARs
• Research
Information
Repository
/
‚CRISpository‘
already
a
reality

19. Recommendations
• Put
the
researcher
in
the
centre
– CRIS
&
OARs
have
joint
responsibility
to
serve
research
– Even
assessment
exercises
will
only
be
accepted
if
the
researchers
agree
on
the
approach
taken
– Researchers
are
not
interested
in
technicalities
• Regard
CRIS
and
OARs
as
assemblies
of
specialized
data
curation
activities
– Everybody
should
keep
on
doing
what
he/she
can
do
best
– Systems
and
formats
are
slave
to
curation
requirements
– Inter-­‐departmental
collaboration
is
the
clue
(and
main
challenge)
– Codex:
Nobody
will
take
away
responsibility
of
the
other

20. And
yes…
…CERIF
will
be
the
common
demoninator

21. Thanks!