1. Strategy Board meeting Brussels 13. september 2009

2. euroCRIS strength Managing research information Backed up with CERIF model A larger picture of interlinking

3. The key strategic elements are a) consolidate our position as THE expertise in the areas of CRIS –CRIS + bibliographic repositories (compete/cooperate with DRIVER and links to bibliometrics etc), –CRIS + data repositories (links to facilities and e- infrastructure also to curation), –CRIS + facilities/equipment (links to e-infrastructure and ERF?), CRIS + innovation (links to wealth creation etc), b) make it known via website, seminar, project proposals c) make it happen via funded projects and activities

4. Via the seminar we engage strategic partners. How do we improve and build upon that linkage to our advantage? ESF mail from Juri Engelberg: –The session on Tuesday impoertant: –How should research be recorded? –Once recorded, how is it used, by whom, and for what purposes? How is it protected? How is it curated/preserved for future generations? –ALLEA november meeting in where the strategy of future will be discussed

5. Web site –anchor position Visible –Important that we are seen and known. We need further visibility to scure funding Money –Gives us credibility, basis to get money through projects, etc

6. Postioning euroCRIS and CERIF model Interlinkage of repositories by interlinkage of CERIF-CRISs How do we proceed? Two project proposals planned Evaluation and assessment by CERIF- CRIS Should we take an initiative to a seminar on evaluation and CRIS Is this an area where we can make som impact?

8. 1. the need for evaluation of research involving structured metadata in a CRIS with links to OA IRs for confirmation of the publication existence; 2. the need for pushing research through to innovation and wealth creation 3. the need to interoperate research information especially publication repositories and repositories of datasets / software 4. the need to manage research funding in general - both for funding organisations and research- performing organisations

9. Of the main activities going on some important ones are: A) the knowledge exchange where hopefully we can persuade them to think beyond repositories to CRIS - with Max, Marga, Simon and others involved B) JISC initiatives in UK to link repositories where the Research Councils are persuading JISC to do it using CERIF-CRIS (Neil Jacobs) C) initiatives in UK to provide a B2B connection between research funders and research-performing organisations using CERIF (probably CERIF-XML) (Gerry Lawson) D) NORDBIB and U Minho and Athens conferences: the awakening of interest from the 'digital library/repositories' community in CRIS - basically they seem to have discovered (at last) that DC doesn't do the job and furthermore they need to link the publications to the research context (person, organisation, project, event, equipment, facility, funding etc etc) which cannot be managed well even with person as author and affiliation as institution from the repository metadata ==> should we link up with DRIVER?

10. E) the continuing unification of research information in Flanders - a model for other countries linking universities and ministries? - and Geert's contact with the EC official F) the development of CRIS in Finland for the funding organisation G) the development of FRIDA from a national system for universities to a full national system for funding organisation (research council) as well and its expansion throughout the Nordic countries H) the development of PURE in Denmark - a CRIS with the publication repository 'inbuilt' I)the interest from ORACLE in CERIF (Alan Davidson) as a product offering in the research sector J) the gradual realisation that CERIF-CRIS can be used as a central repository for an organisation linking heterogeneous legacy systems

11. Our partners –CODATA made us visible DSJ issue –ALLEA mail from Juri E. –JISC –

12. 1. we need to develop the area of funder / funding programme / call with links to documents and financial information as well as persons and organisations 2. we need to consider how to manage 'management documents' in CERIF - of course we can use publications (as I suggested recently to Markku) but the semantics of the entity and attribute names are a bit wrong for this purpose 3. we need to develop the metadata on patents and products further - especially for products such as research datasets and software 4. similarly facilities and equipment - especially if we want CERIF- CRIS to be used in the European e-infrastructure for research (linking up the EIROForum and the ERF facilities (I am speaking at a major European event at Versailles 10 December)