A | B | C | D | E | F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | OVERALL VISION MATRIX | at partners' level | ||||
2 | ||||||
3 | Reminder: Would you agree that the overall vision of the project is to succeed interconnecting, through eInfrastructures, institutions from Europe (and beyond) collecting and processing core biodiversity data, thus leading to the possible implementation of an integrated system allowing each institution and/or all institutions collectively to offer improved or new services to a wide range of users (customers)? | |||||
4 | ||||||
5 | The project aims to address interoperability and sustainability issues in the biodiversity domain with the vision of implementing in the near future an Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System. Such system will facilitate data acquisition, curation, dissemination, etc., but most importantly, open access to biodiversity data, information and knowledge and its re-usability by other disciplines. | |||||
6 | ||||||
7 | Updates: Could be the result of a change in partners’ organisation or following (i) the participation to project meetings and activities (e.g. pilots), (ii) the involvement in other initiatives activities or other events, (iii) the inputs and ideas provided by other partners. Pease inform us on the reasons why you updated your inputs and share your comments, suggestion on the "reasons for change" column | |||||
8 | ||||||
9 | Main obstacles to be faced, key steps to make it happen? | How to manage such an integrated platform (who is in, investment & running costs)? | Which benefits would such a platform offer? Which services to which customers and what price? | Reasons for change | ||
10 | BGBM | A second vision to add: digitisation of information + mobilisation of presently underutilized large volumes of biodiversity information | Three major obstacles: lack of standardisation and interoperability between platforms, availability of help-desk functions (need to quickly create a community-driven help-desk?), institutional commitment, provide stable identifiers for specimen (workshop on 4/5th June 2013 at RBGE; plan to create a collection identifiers implementation review and roadmap during workshop M4.1 in October 2013) | Cannot be answered at this point | Benefits: improved re-usability of data, mobilisation of underutilized data, improved data quality, efficient and secure data management, visibility of biodiversity data, streamlines publication process | |
11 | New products: interactive and dynamic biodiversity data interfaces, data access across institutions | |||||
12 | MfN | Agree in general but the wording is complex and not easy to understand | Obstacles: lacking of commitment from partners, disagreement on standards and procedures, lack of interest from scientists, conflict partners’ - project’s goals, insufficient project dissemination (namely in institutions) | Initial partners + new highly engaged partners | Benefits: increase in scientific output, collaborations, efficient use of taxonomic data / publications, access to a more comprehensive set of data, external services | |
13 | Key developments: communication among partners, dissemination, etc. | A S&T Advisory Board (members from each active partner) is necessary | Services: semantic mark-up of legacy literature, digitizing institutions, automated services (free), tools for semantic mark-up, etc. | |||
14 | A self-sufficient foundation supported by project partners? | |||||
15 | Naturalis | FoG agrees with the overall vision (particularly because it allows addressing different needs and updating published data | FoG obstacle: all data available only in hard copy publication | FoG: the team should include providers of data | FoG: increase of the possibilities of mining and reuse, no repeated work across institutions | |
16 | (7 inputs) | FAN: the vision is in line with FAN priorities | FoN: Developments needs in line with the LERU report | FoN: Aspects linked to logical open access | FoN: a lot (difficult to summarize here) | |
17 | Natrualis (update) | Major obstacles are 1) bringing partners together and working together on the workflow; 2) lack of institution support and commitment; 3) large science monographic study not properly valued | Management can be shared by institutions and fixed budget for tasks can be divided accordingly; Investment by providing training, resources (e.g. IT expertise) and a fully integrated platform. Institution could decide to host the website (eFlora production) as the investment is low on institution level. The running costs is also low once the website is established as there is no major costs involved. | The platform will enhance data accessibility and allow updatability and up-to-date information. It will also facilitate production, accessibility and availability of new content; Collaboration with wider audiences is also another benefit: scientific paper can be annotated on the user (mainly experts on the subject) side. The platform will also benefit on an institutional level as the workflow of e-publishing in comparison to book publication is much cheaper in the long run. Also, scientists will be able to access sound data of a trusted platform. Customers or users are scientists, interested public (hobbyists, naturalists), professionals (consultancy on environmental mining mitigation who needs specific data and identification tools, educational professionals), land user planners (like conservationists, pharmaceutical industries), policy makers, etc. Open access means no fee unless extra service in tailoring the product is required. | Additional data and new selected publication; the changes in opinion and interpretations. | |
18 | Key steps: 1) making clear goals by staying true to the mission; 2) explicit formulated aims, e.g. on what are current needs on Biodiversity; 3) raise awareness and emphasize of the importance of biodiversity knowledge (e.g. Red list 2020 projects can help to create awareness of the importance of Alpha taxonomy) both to public and institution. | |||||
19 | NBGB | An additional aspect is improving taxonomic workflows to benefit from e-Infrastructures | Taxonomists working in a collaborative and structured manner and gaining recognition for digital work | An independent management is preferable but considerable incentive is necessary if we want taxonomists and institutions accepting external decision-making process. Funding would be raised through various means. For example, through providing services to users, by membership and sponsership. | Multilingual access, higher visibility for research, reduced costs, a one-stop-shop, closer ties with institutions in Africa. The intergration of data enabling new science, better monitoring and a reduction to the barriers preventing joined up conservation efforts and sustainable resource management. | |
20 | Working in a multilingual world Reshaping the insentive structure of taxonomy to encourage sharing of taxonomic treatments | |||||
21 | ||||||
22 | Pensoft | Additional aspect is: intensification and increased efficiency of biodiversitry research due to improved and automated linkage between legacy data and prospective publishing. Interlinking between preeviosuly generated and new knowledge will facilitate new discoveries. | Main obstacles are: (1) the continuing practice to publish in PDF format instead of machine harvestable formats (e.g. XML); (2) financial aspects connected to open access publishing; (3) social aspects connected to open data sharing; (4) lack of efficient coordniation of efforts between various biodiversity platforms; (5) lack of universally accepted standards for sharing of different biodiversity informatics elements. | An economically self-supporting membership organisation, financed by (1) membership fees, (2) project funding: (3) services provided to the community | The benefits could be huge and hardly counted in financial terms. The main benefit would be increased efficiency of research due to: (1) open data re-use and big data generation; (2) increased interoperability generates new knowledge; (3) decreasing of effort and costs of obtaining legacy data. | |
23 | PLAZI | Yes but… can institutions change their isolationist’s attitude, can they share the needs for a collaboration at social and funding levels? | A convincing (vital) operating system | No clear answer yet: need to be a project tasks | Customization (more specific content, publishing services) | |
24 | The feeling to be part of a wider science community | Needs to be implemented by “somebody” committed to make it happen | ||||
25 | Pilot studies need to be thoroughly assessed | |||||
26 | RBGK | Yes but subject to project findings + to be further discussed in a project workshop | A lot has to be clarified during the present project (funding, agreement between partners, engagement of potential users, business models, etc.) and included in particular into 6.4 Del. | Too early to say | Pooling of resources, resource duplication, sharing data, economies of scale, broader use of data, single source of truth (avoidance of competition) | |
27 | We should better define “processing core biodiversity data” (floristic and faunistic data?), and “integrated system” | Important to check the coherence of the outcomes of the different WPs | ||||
28 | RBGK update | Reiterate p-iB project risks of any delay or failure to deliver outputs from WP2-4 - Important to stay on target with inputs into business modelling and sustainability (T6.3 and T6.4) | Too early to say - this will depend on the range of business model(s) available | Increased awareness of the capabilities and services offered by partners possibly including some of the following; ? specialisation (eg. providersd of mark-up services, software) ? outsourcing parts of the infratructure ? open source tools | ||
29 | Sigma | No comment (we’ve proposed this vision…) | A test implementation phase of the business model identified in pro-iBiosphere is necessary (= Biosphere funding by the EC) | Beyond committed project partners, other EU and non-EU partners to reach a critical mass | No clear at this project stage | |
30 | Time is critical: a smooth continuity to be ensured between the 2 projects | Governance through a core group | ||||
31 | A technical partner to run the platform is necessary | |||||
32 |