CORDIS Archive
This page has been archived. It will no longer be updated.
 | |||||
The future for CERIF This chapter focuses on what should happen to CERIF 2000 once it is adopted as a recommendation. The CERIF Revision Working Group makes the following recommendations on the future of CERIF.
The overall management of CERIF 2000 should be entrusted to the DG XIII-D4 of the European Commission with the support of the ERGO Working Group (to include CERIF Revision expertise). The tasks of the ERGO Working Group may be divided into three categories:
When dealing with CERIF management, the ERGO-Working Group may request the services of other experts. CERIF management may fall into the following broad areas:
Periodically, the aims of CERIF should be re-evaluated along with the catalogue model concept of ERGO. The ERGO Working Group will report on CERIF to the Innovation Programme Management Committee (IPMC) on an annual basis, proposing changes and requesting authorisation. The IPMC will monitor the activities.
The following diffusion approaches could be considered:
Targets for diffusion will be:
8.2.2 Communicating CERIF 2000 to universities The following vehicles should be considered:
8.2.3 Communicating to commercial CRIS The IRCs (Innovation Relay Centres) and other European networks should be considered as a means to reach commercial CRIS. CORDIS should undertake the development and maintenance of a CERIF web presence. The following services should be considered:
A carefully packaged toolkit could be developed on a CD-ROM. It should be disseminated free-of-charge to interested parties. The toolkit would be designed to assist a person/organisation planning to implement CERIF. The toolkit should contain all background CERIF documentation, sample implementation(s) of CERIF and data model formats. Basic documentation should be available in all EU languages. Information days should be held throughout Europe to involve as many potential and actual CRIS providers as possible. Literature, similar in style to CORDIS and its various services, should be published in at least several EU languages.
The following activities should be undertaken: 8.3.1 Helpdesk Resources should be allocated to set up a helpdesk. The experience with data transfers in the ERGO pilot operation shows that considerable assistance is needed. CERIF exchanges may prove to be even more difficult, necessitating the availability of skilled CERIF staff for advice/assistance. 8.3.2 Workshops Training seminars, on a cost-sharing basis, should be organised for CRIS providers in the process of adopting CERIF. These may be organised in Luxembourg, or by geographic areas. 8.3.3 Network of CERIF users Peer support is a vital key to the ongoing success of CERIF application. The exchange of ideas and experiences can be a very positive instrument in creating and nurturing a family of CERIF users. Such an activity can complement the current EuroCRIS activity. 8.3.4 Pan-European Network of CERIF correspondents The ERGO Working Group and Implementation Group members would be expected to serve as national correspondents/liaison officers for CERIF.
CERIF maintenance should imply the following main tasks:
8.4.1 ORTELIUS Thesaurus maintenance The ORTELIUS Consortium should continue to develop the thesaurus in accordance with international standards. The ORTELIUS Consortium must guarantee regular updates. "Releases" should be published at least quarterly. The ORTELIUS Thesaurus must incorporate a full R&D scope. The ORTELIUS Consortium should be charged with this task, to be overseen by the CERIF management. Member States and Associated countries should be given an initial period of six months after the publication of the CERIF 2000 Recommendation to recommend new terms. This would aim to follow up the initial "stocking" of the Thesaurus by the regular updates as mentioned above. The ORTELIUS Consortium should provide CERIF with easy to use thesaurus outputs, such as the browsing version for the CERIF homepage and the CD-ROM possibly to be included in the toolkit: The ORTELIUS Consortium should ensure proper liaison with other well-established R&D thesauri. To conclude, the ORTELIUS Thesaurus must continue to meet the criteria set by the CERIF Working Group: well-defined hierarchical structure, electronic availability, multilingual content, reliable and timely updating procedures, R&D coverage, and international usage. In the case of non-compliance, CERIF management will have to consider a new method for maintaining the CERIF thesaurus. 8.4.2 Controlled-List Management It is expected that the controlled attribute value lists will evolve with the experience of use. Forms for additions and changes should be included on the web site. CERIF management should incorporate these changes in the toolkit and publish them via the web site and other dissemination vehicles. Of the three data models (full data model, data exchange and metadata), the first two are intended mostly to provide examples to CRIS implementers. The full data model does not claim to be 100% representative of all possible CRIS and the exchange model does not cover examples of all possible exchanges. The organisation implementing CERIF can pick and choose elements that best suit their own environment. Frequent review is not therefore required for these. Changes, where required, would look at major new entities which are of importance to the CRIS community and which should be incorporated into the model. Grey Literature for instance is considered to be an important topic and the current data model does not explicitly address it unless the grey literature object has a recognised URI of bibliographic type such as ISBN or ISSN. In contrast, the metadata model is very much the "glue" which will bind together the diverse CRIS conforming to CERIF 2000.. Technology is moving fast in this area with the emergence of XML standards and products. Furthermore, there is also a need for more kinds of metadata to control restriction of access, data rights (e.g. copyright), etc. Early testing and feedback on the metadata model are therefore highly desirable. The toolkit is the "packaging" of the different CERIF elements mentioned in this chapter. Its updating would therefore coincide with the revision cycle of the other elements.
This is a vital key to deciding when a CERIF review is warranted. For the purposes of gathering feedback, assisting in promotion and training of CERIF users, a telephone number, fax number and dedicated e-mail address should be allocated. Feedback is needed in order to assess:
In order to solicit user feedback, CERIF users must be identified. This may be accomplished by monitoring the website activity, tool downloads, CD-ROM orders and ERGO participation. CERIF users are identified primarily as CRIS providers. 8.5.1 Success factors The basic success criteria are the use of CERIF by CRIS providers and the usability of CERIF tools. The success of ERGO will be an indicator of CERIF success. 8.5.2 Metadata To increase data exchange/interchange the CERIF management should consider developing a metadata export format, Dublin Core compliant, giving CRIS providers the added possibility of making their records available to smart Internet search engines. Additionally a unique metadata search engine interface (crawler) might be considered to be offered for retrieving compliant records. This activity should be viewed as complementary to ERGO. The CERIF management must identify the Dublin Core compliant fields.
The ERGO Working Group should determine when a revision is needed. To ensure cross-compatibility between CRIS implementing the recommendation backward compatibility with previous versions should be ensured under strict release management control. This requirement would apply to all CERIF 2000 components (data model, thesaurus, controlled value tables, etc.).
8.7 Publication of Recommendation When the recommendation is approved, it should be published in the European Commission's Official Journal.
8.8 Feasibility and pilot phase The Commission should invite all European research information providers, and in the first instance those who participate in the ERGO activities, to test the CERIF data model. The ERGO Working Group should be asked to prepare a proposal for the implementation of CERIF 2000 in a next phase of the project. |
 | ||||
  | |||||
