EOSC Concepts Comparison EOSC Glossary Jesse Oikarinen (CSC)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sub-regional Training Workshop on
Advertisements

European e-Competence Framework Company Network Seminar EMCC - Cedefop, 9th November 2006 Jutta Breyer, Germany, Kibnet / AITTS European e-Competence Framework.
European Commission DG Research Co-operative Research Training Session on Ifigeneia Pottaki Research & SMEs DG Research - European Commission Training.
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE and the Information Society Council of Europe Summit (May 2005), Action Plan on e-democracy: "We will also take initiatives so that.
Towards European e-Job profiles CEN ICT Skills Workshop project June 2010 – May 2012 overview of project aims and deliverables planned.
Policy interoperability in electronic signatures Andreas Mitrakas EESSI International event, Rome, 7 April 2003.
World Class Standards Standards Mandate M 376 – Phase 2 European public procurement of accessible ICT Mandate M European Accessibility requirements.
Institutional Evaluation of medical faculties Prof. A. Сheminat Arkhangelsk 2012.
Capacity and Service to Road Users Task O1 Vision Paul van der Kroon, Copenhagen March 2006.
SEAMLESS: Demo Version 1.4 “Presenting current developments and welcoming your feedback” For contact:
Components of a Comprehensive Professional Learning System Conceptual Components Operational Components Vision/Function/Goals.
Software Quality Assurance. Software Quality Software quality is defined as the quality that ensures customer satisfaction by offering all the customer.
1FTS-CEER bilateral meeting, St Petersburg, 17 May 2011 Peter Plug Chairman of the electricity working group Use and management of interconnections – The.
European network for Health Technology Assessment | JA | EUnetHTA European network for Health Technology Assessment THL Info.
Towards a European Shared Environmental Information System in Support of Environmental Policies: INSPIRE: an Inspired revolution for a knowledge-based.
EGI Foundation (Session Chair)
Brief introduction of the Architecture work done so far
Wrap-up and Next steps Donatella & Bri
INSPIRE and the role of Spatial Data Interest Communities (SDIC)
EOSC Governance Development Forum EOSC Governance Framework
EOSC Services for Scientists
Services for EOSC management
Panel discussion on Principles of Engagement
EOSC MODEL Pasquale Pagano CNR - ISTI
EOSCpilot Service Pilots Face to Face with SDs and RPs
Defining EOSC Rules of Engagement Damien Lecarpentier (CSC)
Integrated Management System and Certification
Donatella Castelli CNR-ISTI
Trilateral Research EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The e-Infrastructure Commons
Open information day, DG Information Society
Software Engineering (CSI 321)
Integrated Management System and Certification
Wrap-up & discussion EOSC Governance Development Forum workshop:
Roadmap to Enhanced Technical Regulations of WMO
Project Overview and EOSC Governance
Christian Ansorge Arona, 09/04/2014
Standards for success in city IT and construction projects
European Open Science Cloud All Hands Meeting Pisa 8-9 March 2018
EOSCpilot Skills Landscape & Framework
EOSC & e-Science: enabling the digital transformation of Science
EOSC Governance Development Forum
WP2 Governance Per Öster
INFRAEOSC 5c call Proposal summary
EOSCpilot All Hands Meeting 9 March 2018, Pisa
LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING GUIDANCE AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EOSC services architecture
WP5.2 Report & outlook Jan Bot, SURF
Council of Europe Child Participation Assessment Tool
EOSCpilot All-hands meeting Pisa, March 8th-9th 2018
EOSC Overall Architecture Donatella Castelli CNR-ISTI
6.2 data interoperability Rafael C Jimenez ELIXIR
European Open Science Cloud All Hands Meeting Pisa 8-9 March 2018
Good Practices on Disaster Prevention in Europe
Three Uses for a Technology Roadmap
Giuliano Amerini Unit E6 (Transport)
Interoperability – GO FAIR - RDA
Brian Matthews STFC EOSCpilot Brian Matthews STFC
EOSCpilot All Hands Meeting, Pisa, 8-9 March, 2018
Towards a shared terminology Leonardo Candela CNR-ISTI
EOSCpilot All Hands Meeting 9 March 2018, Pisa
How to Implement the FAIR Data Principles? Elly Dijk
Cluster Knowledge Integration and Dissemination
Sergio Andreozzi, Sy Holsinger, Malgorzata Krakowian, Matthew Viljoen
How to make training materials discoverable
Skills Framework FAIR 4S DI4R18 Lisbon
INSPIRE MIG-T Meeting Paris, October
EOSC-hub Contribution to the EOSC WGs
Interoperability and data for open science
Open Science Conference Ljubljani 22 May 2019
Presentation transcript:

EOSC Concepts Comparison EOSC Glossary Jesse Oikarinen (CSC)

EOSC Concepts Comparison The aim of the EOSC glossary Create common understanding of key concepts and their definitions Concepts comparison task Identifying and highlighting any terminological issue emerging from EOSCpilot deliverables produced so far Are we meaning the same things with concepts? Are we using the same terminology? Are we using contradictory definitions? Are we understanding things differently?

Preliminary analysis of the EOSC concept definitions D2.2. Draft Governance Framework For the European Open Science Cloud D3.1. Policy Landscape Review D5.1. Initial EOSC Service Architecture D5.2. EOSC Service Portfolio D6.3. 1st Report on Data Interoperability: Findability and Interoperability 52 definitions were identified and divided into different clusters: Stakeholders, users, actors Resources and services System architecture and structure Processes and procedures Other concepts

The 4 main findings In most cases (35/52) there are no contradictory definitions in the deliverables Keep in mind the narrow scope of the analysis How to make sure the terms are well defined? A process needed In some cases (10/52) the definitions of the same concepts differ in different deliverables in their scope making some of the used definitions broader and more informative. In a minority of cases (4/52) different terms and concepts are used to refer to the same thing. In a minority of cases (3/52) concepts are being used without defining them.

Mostly no contradictory terms in use… yet Some examples: (D.5.2.) EOSC Client: EOSC Client is the role of the actors that exploit the facilities offered by the EOSC system as a mean to support their working activities. Major client sub-roles are envisaged: scientist and research manager/Admin. (D5.1.) EOSC Node: EOSC Nodes are the “organisational pieces” of the EOSC System called to contribute to the provisioning of one or more EOSC Services. Because of this, EOSC Nodes are: (a) the “places” where EOSC Services and/or EOSC Service Component reside; (b) operated by an EOSC Service Provider and/or and EOSC Supplier. (D5.2.) EOSC Technical Committee: A team of experts responsible for assigning and monitoring service quality within EOSC. This will come in two types: those quality measures that are generic across all (or, at least, many) EOSC services, and those that are scientific discipline specific.

Same concepts, differing definitions Some examples: (D5.1.) Data (Service) Supplier: Any EOSC Supplier making available its own data (by means of a Service) to enable an EOSC Service Provider to operate an EOSC Service. (D5.2) Data (Service) Supplier: will make available their own data to EOSC to enact an EOSC Service. (D5.1.) EOSC Compatible Service: Any service worth having in an Service Catalogue without being an EOSC Service. Compatibility implies only that such services can coexist with the EOSC Services within the catalogue context. Because of the inclusive willingness of the catalogue, no technical requirement is currently envisaged aiming at guaranteeing that these services can technically coexist / interoperate with EOSC services in application scenarios. (D5.2.) EOSC Compatible Service: EOSC Compatible in this model indicates that the service meets the requirements to be in the EOSC portfolio.

Different terms referring to the same thing Example: (D5.1.) EOSC Principles of Engagement (PoE): Policies, processes, and roles governing the behaviour and the duties of EOSC Users when using EOSC Services. (D.5.2.) Rules of Engagement: Rules of Engagement (RoE) will be designed within the EOSC governance that apply to providers of services. These RoE make sure that for every service in the EOSC Portfolio at least: conditions for access to the service are clear and transparent; the provider of the service is clear and well-described, including formal contact information; functional specifications of the service are described according to standards, including available user- and expert support; the service level is defined and described according to standards; descriptions are available in English. (D3.1.) Principles of Engagement (RoE or PoE) constitute a series of core principles in relation to the services and data provided through EOSC and which are binding for EOSC users and service providers. EOSC policies provide a broader framework within which the PoE operate, while PoE provide specific guidelines that can then be translated into specific institutional policies.

Different terms referring to the same thing #2 Example: (D5.1.) EOSC System Manager: This is a comprehensive umbrella role for all the actors that manage and operate EOSC and its services. (D.5.2.) EOSC Manager: a wide comprehensive umbrella role for all the actors that manage and operate EOSC and its services. They will use services to efficiently and effectively perform their Service Catalogue and Service Portfolio Management tasks using the EOSC Service Management System’s services.

Concepts/terms not defined Some examples: (D5.2.) EOSC Certification: not defined (D5.2.) EOSC Stakeholder: not defined

Next steps? Work continues - all deliverables should be analyzed Process to make clearly defined concepts Should also make sure that they are in line with EC definitions

Jesse Oikarinen (CSC) jesse.oikarinen@csc.fi www.eoscpilot.eu The European Open Science Cloud for Research pilot project is funded by the European Commission, DG Research & Innovation under contract no. 739563