Metadata in Research Information Conclusions / Take Home Messages Ed Simons, President of euroCRIS eurocris Seminar – Brussels – September 10, 2013

Conclusions: Take Home Messages (THM) Research metadata take a core position within the research information business domain. They are the keys to successful discovery, access, and (re-)use of research information and data. Substantial challenges exist in order to realize optimal solutions for the creation, management and use of research metadata. Several of these challenges have to do with optimal communication, cooperation and harmonization of visions and approaches between key stake holder communities in the research information domain as well as the interoperability of their models, applications and definitions. To meet these challenges is not only a duty, but more so a responsibility: notably the responsibility that we as key players in the research information domain have to use our expertise, knowledge and experience to, on an international level, create the best possible conditions for research.

Conclusions: THM We are clearly moving forward in the Research Information Domain: awareness and consensus is growing among the expert community (us) about the challenges we are facing, the roads to embark upon to meet these challenges and the instruments (models, systems) available to create solutions. Core challenge: to translate this awareness and consensus in concrete forms of communication, cooperation and harmonization between key stake holder communities in the research information domain. One of these concrete challenges concerns the creation of crosswalks between major metadata formats. So not a “wild” or “universal mapping”, but some mappings are necessary, e.g. CRIS-CRIS, CRIS-Repository (CERIF-DC, CERIF-MODS, etc..), CERIF-VIVO/LOD, CERIF-metadata for data (CERIF-DCAT, CERIF-CKAN, CERIF- ESPRIT) Research metadata take a core position within the research information business domain. They are the keys to successful discovery, access, and (re-)use of research information and data. Substantial challenges exist in order to realize optimal solutions for the creation, management and use of research metadata. Several of these challenges have to do with optimal communication, cooperation and harmonization of visions and approaches between key stake holder communities in the research information domain as well as the interoperability of their models, applications and definitions. To meet these challenges is not only a duty, but more so a responsibility: notably the responsibility that we as key players in the research information domain have to use our expertise, knowledge and experience to, on an international level, create the best possible conditions for research.

Conclusions: THM Solutions are however not (cannot be) limited to technical aspects. Also the “business layer” should be taken into account, and even have priority in defining appropriate solutions. This probably has not gotten enough attention in the past, but this is changing and is perhaps one of the biggest “moves forward”. Apart from technological solutions, also well-advanced models and tools have recently become available (CASRAI, FRIS) to analyze, model and describe the business domain of research information. The combination of the (insights, understanding of the) business layer with the technological solutions available (e.g. CERIF) could lead to powerful solutions (“turnkey”) for a country or a given use segment (e.g. research management) in the RI domain. An important aspect in this is the fact that the integration of the business layer – apart from other advantages – will contribute significantly to communicate the solution to the user community and the decision makers. Related to the previous: a big challenge remains to appropriately “broadcast our colours” to the two groups – user communities, decision makers – just mentioned, meaning: creating awareness and illustrate the added value that the solution brings.

Conclusions: THM On a practical note, towards the relation of euroCRIS with its strategic partners: Agree upon and define possible joint strategic goals (formally in a document) Joint project formulation and funding seeking Formalize our communication, by structurally creating a space for each other in our Newsletters or other formal communication with our members. Representation at each others events. The time of merely “talking” to each other about models, technologies, etc.. is over. We now must switch to the development of concrete services to the user communities. This is extremely important in view of obtaining funding.

Conclusions: THM Then, for closers: how good or optimal our solutions on matadata may be, it all depends on the quality of metadata. This mostly (still) is human work. Humans make errors, forget, lose discipline or just lie. How they behave in this respect highly relates to how their institutions deal with metadata. In this respect, some Take Home Messages for the institutional management are: Metadata creation is a core activity of organizations dealing with research information (research institutions, universities, libraries,…), therefore the formulation of a metadata policy and strategy should be a priority within these organizations A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata by upper management is essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy. Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution. Adequate, carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive, comprehensive metadata strategy.