O slideshow foi denunciado.

Jornadas 2015: PTCRIS: Parte II

0

Compartilhar

1 de 92
1 de 92

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Semelhante a Jornadas 2015: PTCRIS: Parte II

Jornadas 2015: PTCRIS: Parte II

  1. 1. PTCRIS - Parte II João Mendes Moreira 10-Set-14 1
  2. 2. Agenda Parte I • WP0: Ponto situação • WP1: Demo: interoperabilidade • WP1: Desconstruindo interoperabilidade • WP2 Novo sistema CV • Ciência-IUL (CRIS ISCTE) Parte II • WP3: Identificadores de Organizações • Ante projeto novo SI Grant Management • WP4: Fundações PTCRIS • WP10: Sítio web PTCRIS • Plano de atividades 2015 10-Set-14 2
  3. 3. Vídeo CASRAI 10-Set-14 3
  4. 4. Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot Organisational identifiers 1oth Feb 2015 Jornadas FCCN
  5. 5. Introducing Jisc 5 Jisc offers digital services for UK education and research. The charity does this to achieve its vision for the UK to be the most digitally advanced education and research nation in the world. Jisc.ac.uk © Isaxen via Flickr
  6. 6. What does Jisc do? 6 Does 4 things… Providing and developing a network infrastructure and related services that meet the needs of the UK research and education communities Supporting the procurement of digital content for UK education and research Our network of national and regional teams provide local engagement, advice and support to help you get the most out of our service offer Our R&D work, paid for entirely by our major funders, identifies emerging technologies and develops them around your particular needs
  7. 7. The UK research context: General 7 » Many institutions and research institutes (within and outside universities) » Many research funders (UK Research Councils only 30% of total research income) » Varied infrastructure – Institutional Repositories,CRIS’s (one of these or neither) » Changing environment › Mandates effecting research information and research data › Increasing importance of external (non-governmental) funding › Interdisciplinary and international focus
  8. 8. The UK research context: policies and mandates 8 » Research excellence Framework (REF) from the four university funding bodies* - research impact (REF2014 published, preparation for 2020 - awaiting guidance) » REF open access policy - to be eligible authors accepted manuscripts must be deposited in Institutional Repositories (journal material) » Research Councils UK (RCUK)- 7 subject based research councils: the RCUK Policy on Open Access aims to achieve “immediate, unrestricted, online access to peer reviewed and published research papers, free of any access charge” » To help implementation - new funding policy block grant to Universities to cover cost of Article Processing charges (APC’s) » EPSRC Research Data Mandate – universities set in place processes and practices to ensure curation and preservation of research data (create roadmap for compliance and act on it) *Higher Education FundingCouncil for England (HEFCE), Scottish FundingCouncil (SFC), the Higher Education FundingCouncil for Wales (HEFCW) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL)
  9. 9. The UK research context: RIM 9 » Not a shared national reporting infrastructure » Funders & agencies › Funder systems’ landscape is complex (and somewhat ad hoc): Je-S; ResearchFish, Research Outcomes System; Grants on theWeb; REF; HESA » Universities › Institutional systems landscape is complex (ad hoc): 60 using CRIS/Cerif, spreadsheets, repositories used by many, 125 HEIs with an Institutional Repository » Information required for both day-to-day management, funding requirements and strategic decision making
  10. 10. Jisc – How are we helping 10 » Support universities core business and help make research process more productive › Developing shared services/infrastructure where appropriate › Supporting implementation of key standards › Providing a channel for universities requirements with funders, vendors etc. › Getting everyone together
  11. 11. Introduction to CASRAI 11 » International community of leading research funders and institutions collaborating to ensure seamless interoperability of research information » Develop and maintain a common data dictionary and advocate on best practices »Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI)
  12. 12. »Dictionary defines key terms or information elements which relate to the management of (for example): › Research grants › CVs › Data management plans › Controlled vocabularies › Authoritative lists › Identifiers Introduction to CASRAI 12
  13. 13. Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot » UK CASRAI summit in December 2012, decision to › set up and run three working groups on priority topics › support discussions in other areas (e.g. equipment profiles and research ethics) if required. » Set up a National Review Circle which includes a wider group of people that are interested in the progress of CASRAI-UK and who will provide advice and feedback on working group outputs » Other objectives include exploring how the CASRAI governance arrangements could work in a UK context beyond the pilot and an evaluation of the pilot 13
  14. 14. Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot 14 » Jisc and CASRAI are piloting three National Working Groups in the UK › Data Management Plans › Organisational (Authoritative) Lists › Open Access Reporting » Each at different stage of process but has charter and plan » Pilot ends March 2015 » Future working groups? » Evaluation
  15. 15. OrgId Working Group - Objectives 15 » Identify main candidate sources of OrgIds » Subject them to common use cases which are relevant to universities and other parts of the RIM and RDM workflow » The main output will be a common statement about how the UK research community should use OrgIds and the policy requirement in order for harmonised OrgIds to work » Develop a sustainable process for maintaining authoritative lists of organisations in the CASRAI dictionary » The membership of this working group includes representatives fromARMA, Research Councils, HEDIIP, BL, CrossRef,Wellcome Trust, CRIS system vendors and UK HEIs
  16. 16. OrgId Working Group - Outputs 16 » Organisational Id Landscape Study – a report to inform the Working Group on the current use of organisational identifiers was commissioned and delivered (Sept 2013) » Organisational Id Review – commissioned by theWorking Group to review a core set of organisational identifiers (ISNI, Ringgold, Digital Science and UKPRN) (Dec 2014) » Use cases – based on key use cases from the Research Lifecycle, these have been identified by the Working Group and further developed under the OrgId Review (Dec 2014)
  17. 17. Landscape Study –Terms of Reference 17 » Interview representatives within the working group to establish what authoritative lists of organisations involved in UK research are being, or could be, used; determine use cases based on organisational identifiers used, the problems encountered and the approach they are currently undertaking » Produce a landscape review of organisational identifiers currently used, and for what purpose, in the UK » Look at “organisational” identifiers in its broadest sense.This would, therefore, include “institutions”, as well as “funders” and other types of organisation
  18. 18. Landscape Study- Summary 18 » Examined the landscape of organisational identifiers in the UK and identified 23 different IDs » Based on interviews with key individuals » Lots of detail on use cases for publishing, funders and institutions » Stakeholders interviewed for this study typically described identifying organisations as “a nightmare”, specifically disambiguation and deduplication » Benefits from effective unique identifiers are truly realised when data is shared » Key aspects of identifiers that support the widest range of uses: › Governance,Trust,Transparency,Temporal, Appropriate Metadata › Of these, the “temporal” information is perhaps the most challenging to address
  19. 19. Landscape Study - Recommendations 19 » None of the identifiers investigated fulfils the role of being an “authoritative list” of organisations involved in research.They are all constrained in scope » ISNI and UKPRN both have traction, and warrant particularly careful consideration by the working group. UKPRN does not cover the full range of organisations involved in research, is limited to the UK, and does not include departments, but is a robustly managed list that covers a defined subset of organisations very well.The role of the registration agency in ISNI is crucial, and whether the existing agencies offer appropriate services for this domain will need to be considered » The Research Councils, as major funders of research in the UK, should be closely involved in the development of any new identifier system. At present, ROS, ResearchFish and Gateway to Research all use their own identifiers » Given the range of existing identifiers, any new identifier system should only be developed and introduced if there is clear evidence of demand, and sufficient buy in to ensure that it is universally adopted » The authority can remain separate from the identifier (for example, it would be feasible to establish an authority list with appropriate metadata but using the ISNI as the identifier)
  20. 20. OrgId Review –Terms of Reference 20 » Clarify a representative but not comprehensive set of use cases for the UK research community to use organisational identifiers » Survey and interview a small number of well-informed people in the field in order to create and prioritise a list of desirable features for the provision of OrgIDs and potential services built around them » Check the use cases and these required features against four* possible candidate OrgIDs and their providers » Inform theWorking Group of the review’s conclusions and, if appropriate, make recommendations for adoption by the UK research community *Four candidates = ISNI, Ringgold, UKPRN, Digital Science
  21. 21. OrgId Review – Use Cases 21 » UC1 - Researcher applying for funding As a Researcher applying for funding, I need to list multiple organisations related to my proposal in order to enable the target funder to uniquely identify previous employers and other funders, collaborators or industry partners and beneficiaries. » UC2 - Funder: minimising conflicts of interest As a funder preparing to find referees or reviewers, I need to be able to identify suitable people in order to minimize conflicts of interest (through potential co-location at host institution). » UC3 - Funder - tracking published outputs As a Funder, collating outputs in end-of-research reports, I need to be able to track published outputs in order to understand our contribution & successful collaborations. » UC5 - Researcher or research manager - reporting academic impacts to funders As a research producer, I need to report academic impacts to different funders with different requirements. » UC6 - Researcher - tracking organisations across time As a researcher I need to preserve the historical integrity of organisational names at the time of data creation, collection or deposit (and other, specified times); it is similarly important, however, to record and retain the links between these differing names, so that any user can see which data came from which organisation, even if the organisation name has changed. » UC7 - Repository manager - populating repositories, managing automation As a repository manager I need to be able to uniquely identify my repository, whether or not its location or URL changes; this will enable me to control semi- automated population of repository records. » UC8 - Developer - directory services As a developer for research funders, I need to link an OrgID within my application to a directory service.This will allow an end user or a machine to verify identity and contact details. N.B. UC4 was deleted early in the review
  22. 22. OrgId Review – Candidates 22 » UKPRN › www.ukrlp.co.uk › UK Register of Learning Providers is a register of legally verified learning providers in UK › Each verified provider will be assigned with a unique provider reference number UKPRN › Information shared across sector with agencies (e.g. Skills Funding Agency, Higher Education Statistics Agency, HE Funding Council for England and Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) » Digital Science Institute Database › Public beta Feb 2015 http://idb.datasci.it › Global coverage of organisations that feature in the scientific lifecycle › 25,ooo organisations expected to be indexed by release › Metadata includes names, aliases, urls, wikipedia pages, types, relationships and addresses, with all address data linked to geonames › Substantial amount of this database available for free under a CC-BY licence
  23. 23. OrgId Review – Candidates 23 » ISNI http://www.isni.org/ › Holds public records of over 7.49 million identities including 7M individuals (800K are researchers) and 490,000 organisations › ISNI database is a cross-domain resource, contributed to by 29 institutions and databases, and 40 major national and research libraries › Part of the suite of ISO identifiers (along with ISBN, ISSN, etc.). › Its governance infrastructure is designed with the purpose of ensuring the long-term viability of the identifier. › ISNI is a bridge identifier, designed to provide interoperability between different proprietary identifiers, such as the Ringgold ID and a critical component in Linked Data and SemanticWeb apps » Ringgold www.ringgold.com › A registration agency for ISNI › Identify database contains 400,000 organisation records with organisational identifiers and associated metadata › The database is global and covers all market sectors, including universities, research centres, funders, corporations, non-profit organisations, government entities and organisations, healthcare and hospitals, schools and public libraries › It contains basic location metadata and is not designed to replace existing identifiers but to provide a bridge between them across multiple parts of the wider creative industries › Not replacing the Ringgold ID with the ISNI number, but will provide the ISNI number along with the Ringgold ID. The ISNI number is designed to sit above the proprietary identifier to link systems of identifiers together as a bridge identifier.
  24. 24. OrgId Review – Candidate check against use cases 24
  25. 25. OrgId Review – OrgIds in use 25 The following two tables list the desirability of features we asked about, in descending order of agreement (according to the 16 respondents). [Note:The letter-designations of each feature refer to discussions in the report.]
  26. 26. OrgId Review – Characteristics of an OrgId Service 26
  27. 27. OrgId Review - Recommendations 27
  28. 28. OrgId Review - Recommendations 28 » TheWorking Group should consider recommending a hybrid approach with ISNI as the backbone. Institutions and others needing to register and use OrgIDs should use a solution which relies on and feeds the minimum data set curated by ISNI » In considering registration solutions and value-added services, organisations should bear in mind that, in the short term, Ringgold is the most developed agency conforming to recommendation 1 » Expect that soon there will be other service providers working to deliver value added services on top of ISNI and theWorking Group should do what they can to encourage such competition by, for example, DigitalScience, who should consider the possibility of acting as a registration agency for ISNIs in a similar way to Ringgold » Jisc should investigate the possibilities and costs of a bulk deal for UK academic institutions for value added services with Ringgold and (in time) with other service providers » CrossRef should consider creating and maintaining a crosswalk or table of equivalence betweenFundRef IDs and ISNI, either through a direct relationship with ISNI or through a third party / registration agency. Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) has recently become a registration agency for ISNI and the review recommends that HEFCE and the British Library discuss whether it would be appropriate for there to be a UK- based registration agency and how bulk creation/checking of ISNIs (and bulk registration and/or the creation of a table of equivalence for UKPRNs) might take place for UK academic institutions and other organisations involved in research
  29. 29. OrgId Working Group – What next? 29 » Statement of Agreement – currently being drafted › A draft statement based on the recommendations from the OrgId Review Report and discussions with the OrgIdWorking Group.The purpose of this statement is for key organisations such as Jisc, RCUK, HEFCE, etc to sign up to. » Testing i. A merged list of organisations, created from UCL's interactions with Wellcome, should be submitted to ISNI to test the quality of the UCL/Wellcome data and the quality and timeliness of the existing ISNI data and their response ii. "sandbox" experiments should be set up with Ringgold, Digital Science and ISNI to look at whether the data tested in [i] (or a subset) is capable of providing the basis for a value added solution with the present state of orgID services. » Post-pilotWorking Group › Pilot ends March 2014 -> future relationship with CASRAI › ReviewWorking Groups
  30. 30. Further Information 30 » CASRAI/Jisc National Network: Jisc.ac.uk » CASRAI website casrai.org » Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot blog jisccasraipilot.jiscinvolve.org/ » Organisational Identifiers › Landscape study - http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5381/ › Review & use cases - http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5853/
  31. 31. Find out more… 31 Christopher Brown Senior Co-design Manager, Jisc christopher.brown@jisc.ac.uk @chriscb Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND
  32. 32. Agenda Parte I • WP0: Ponto situação • WP1: Demo: interoperabilidade • WP1: Desconstruindo interoperabilidade • WP2 Novo sistema CV • Ciência-IUL (CRIS ISCTE) Parte II • WP3: Identificadores de Organizações • Ante projeto novo SI Grant Management • WP4: Fundações PTCRIS • WP10: Sítio web PTCRIS • Plano de atividades 2015 10-Set-14 32
  33. 33. Plano Sistemas de Informação para a Gestão de Ciência da FCT João Gomes Diretor Área de Serviços Avançados
  34. 34. Plano SIGCiência 1/2 • Reforço equipa • Separação Suporte / Desenvolvimento • Formação metodologias ágeis, processos de desenvolvimento e usabilidade
  35. 35. Plano SIGCiência 2/2 • Reduzir dependências de pessoas isoladas • Capacidade de escalar com recursos externos/outsourcing quando necessário • Mudar de processos internos • Planear adoção e transição para Plataforma de Nova Geração de Sistemas de Informação FCT (Plataforma de desenvolvimento rápido/ágil)
  36. 36. Arquitetura unificada de sistemas de informação sobre plataforma de nova geração • Levantamento de requisitos global • Estudo de modelos Sueco e Holandês • Arquitetura global • Provas de conceito (CERIF, Autenticação Federada e Simulação de Concursos Tipo) • Plano de implementação de transição faseada
  37. 37. Resultados esperados • Melhor capacidade de resposta aos requisitos de SI da FCT/Comunidade • Melhor qualidade dos SI produzidos • Sistema unificado – melhor imagem e usabilidade e alinhamento PT-CRIS • Melhor usabilidade de todos os sistemas • Menor dependência dos informáticos
  38. 38. Agenda Parte I • WP0: Ponto situação • WP1: Demo: interoperabilidade • WP1: Desconstruindo interoperabilidade • WP2 Novo sistema CV Parte II • WP3: Identificadores de Organizações • Ante projeto novo SI Grant Management • WP4: Fundações PTCRIS • WP10: Sítio web PTCRIS • Plano de atividades 2015 10-Set-14 38
  39. 39. Fundações PT-CRIS Ângela Marta / João Martins Severino
  40. 40. Desafio Criar um Repositório Único com a informação core de negócio da FCT... Fev 2015 40
  41. 41. Desafio ... que permita consolidar os dados segmentados pelos vários sistemas legacy existentes ... que suporte os processos de negócio e novas aplicações da FCT ... que facilite a adoção de sistemas comerciais ou Open Source (por exemplo VIVO) ... que seja a referencia para o sistema de Reporting/Data Mining da FCT Fev 2015 41
  42. 42. Desafio X Z B A Y Fev 2015 42
  43. 43. Agenda Realidade FCT Modelo CERIF Projeto “Piloto” Futuro Fev 2015 43
  44. 44. Realidade FCT  Modelos não se encontram analisados e/ou documentados, e onde existe duplicação e/ou inconsistência de dados.  Cenário que dificulta a manutenção e a criação de novas aplicações, bem como a integração com outros sistemas. +100 bases de dados relacionadas a Grant Management Fev 2015 44
  45. 45. Realidade FCT O modelo de dados a adotar terá que ser necessariamente um modelo de dados standard e genérico, com capacidades de expansão e adaptado à realidade e necessidade da FCT. Dada a complexidade dos modelos de dados, a migração para um modelo central tem que ser realizada progressivamente Fev 2015 45
  46. 46. Agenda Realidade FCT Modelo CERIF Projeto “Piloto” Futuro Fev 2015 46
  47. 47. Modelo CERIF CERIF “Common European Research Information Format” EuroCris “The European Organization for International Research Information”. Organização responsável por manter e publicar o modelo CERIF. Modelo já implementado por outras congéneres da FCT, dá resposta à maioria das necessidades decorrentes do negócio: Programas de investigação; Apoios às instituições patrocinados por fundos públicos e privados. Fev 2015 47
  48. 48. Modelo CERIF Conceito de objetos ou entidades com atributos tais como projetos, pessoas, unidades organizacionais; Suporta relações de n:n entre entidades e recursividade em algumas delas, fornecendo uma semântica rica que inclui perfis e tempo. Extensível sem prejuízo do modelo de dados principal (Extensões CERIF); Projetado para troca de dados e para ambientes de consulta/relatórios heterogéneos; Modelo totalmente internacionalizado; Utilização de normas internacionais. Fev 2015 48
  49. 49. Modelo CERIF Ampla Rede de comunidades que produzem de Aplicações (em modelo open source) Cooperação com: CASRAI VIVO ORCID Fev 2015 49
  50. 50. Agenda Realidade FCT Modelo CERIF Projeto “Piloto” Futuro Fev 2015 50
  51. 51. Projeto “Piloto” > Objetivos Tornar o CERIF a base de dados central da FCT; Alimentar o modelo com dados dos sistemas Legacy; Adotar politicas de Data Quality; Retirar indicadores e KPI’s com base na informação constante no modelo; Garantir extensibilidade: Sempre que possível e que se justifique, as aplicações existentes deverão ter por fonte o CERIF Não deve impactar o correto funcionamento dos atuais sistemas. Fev 2015 51
  52. 52. Projeto “Piloto” > Estratégia Prioridade: Quick-Wins! Impacto Alto Quick-Wins Must HavesBaico Low-Hanging Fruit Money Pit Baixa Alta Complexidade Fev 2015 52
  53. 53. Projeto “Piloto” > 1ª Fase  Implementar o Modelo CERIF na FCT;  Avaliar a aplicação do modelo CERIF com a informação e o negócio da FCT;  Desenhar e Validar a arquitetura técnica de referência. 1º FASE – PROJETO PILOTO Objetivos Domínio  Projeto SAM (Sistema de Atendimento Multicanal)  CRM – MS Dynamics  Business Intelligence  Projeto em fase final de implementação com grande impacto na FCT (projeto de sucesso)  Área critica de grande visibilidade – bolsas (~12.000 clientes) Fev 2015 53
  54. 54. Projeto “Piloto” > 1ª Fase Migração para o CERIF dos dados relativos a: Entidades Contactos Candidaturas Contratos Programa Contratos de Trabalho Bolsas Fev 2015 54 As fontes de dados utilizadas são: Base de dados das bolsas e do emprego científico para o detalhe de contratos e contratos programa; Base de dados das Avaliações; Base de dados da aplicação Investigador IF
  55. 55. Projeto “Piloto” > Estado Atual Estudo prévio várias soluções Apresentação Equipa FCT Análise Funcional e Desenho Técnico Implementação Piloto CRM Migração CERIF – 1.5 JPA – Utilização API Fase de testes e aceitação Disponibilização em Pré-Produção com dados reais Fev 2015 55
  56. 56. Projeto “Piloto” > Estado Atual API - GET ID da entidade CERIF (pessoa, projeto, organização,…) – Registo Entidade CERIF – Listagens Exemplos: Person; OrgUnits; Projects; Funding http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/persons/1 | http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/persons/2?showLinks=false http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/orgunits/1 | http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/orgunits/7059 http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/projects/1 | http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/projects/2 http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/fundings | http://api.fct.pt:8080/cerifapi/fundings/1 Fev 2015 56
  57. 57. Projeto “Piloto” > Conclusões Fev 2015 57 Conhecimento dos Modelos Dados Operacionais da Instituição Envolvimento das Equipas é FUNDAMENTAL! Participação nas diversas fases do projeto Disponibilidade de Recursos Disponibilização Dados/Informação Gestão da Mudança Comunicar e Gerar Necessidade!
  58. 58. Agenda Realidade FCT Modelo CERIF Projeto “Piloto” Futuro Fev 2015 58
  59. 59. Fev 2015 59
  60. 60. Projeto “Piloto” > Futuro Fev 2015 60 Disponibilizar Dados “as a Service”; Integração com normas internacionais (CASRAI, ORCID); Utilização do Modelo de dados CERIF como Source do Business Intelligence; Expansão aos restantes departamentos/ instrumentos de financiamento de forma modular; Extensão para infraestruturas financiadas.
  61. 61. Obrigado
  62. 62. Agenda Parte I • WP0: Ponto situação • WP1: Demo: interoperabilidade • WP1: Desconstruindo interoperabilidade • WP2 Novo sistema CV Parte II • WP3: Identificadores de Organizações • Ante projeto novo SI Grant Management • WP5: Fundações PTCRIS • WP10: Sítio web PTCRIS • Plano de atividades 2015 10-Set-14 62
  63. 63. Jornadas FCCN 2015, ISCTE (Lisboa), 10 a 12 de fevereiro Workshop PTCRIS Sítio Web PTCRIS Filipa Alves, João Moreira e Hugo Mendes
  64. 64. Objetivos • Dar a conhecer o PT-CRIS e os benefícios associados; • Difundir os serviços PTCRIS; • Divulgar e promover a utilização do PTCRIS e dos seus sistemas constituintes pelos vários públicos-alvo; • Informar sobre o desenvolvimento do Programa PTCRIS; • Dar espaço à interação da equipa com os diferentes públicos-alvo.
  65. 65. Metodologia (1/3) 1. Identificação dos principais tipos de utilizadores: A. Administradores de SI B. Gestores de Ciência C. Investigadores D. Dirigentes E. Bibliotecários F. Financiadores
  66. 66. 2. Criação de Personas Ex: A Joana tem 36 anos e é Gestora de Ciência e Tecnologia numa Instituição do Ensino Superior em Lisboa. Formada em Biologia, fez o doutoramento na mesma área e experimentou o Jornalismo de Ciência antes de enveredar pela Gestão de Ciência. Entusiasta da Ciência em todas as suas dimensões, faz a ponte entre as instituições financiadoras e os investigadores da sua instituição procurando alinhar os interesses dos primeiros e as necessidades dos segundos. Metodologia (2/3)
  67. 67. Metodologia (3/3) 3. Match-making Personas – utilizadores reais (N=16) 4. Testes - pré-entrevistas (N=2) 5. Realização de entrevistas (N=7) – Informais – Semi-estruturadas – Entrevistador + Entrevistado + Observador – Online (Colibri)/Presencial (FCCN ou FCT)
  68. 68. Resultados – conteúdos (1/3) • Gerais O que é /Para quê /Para quem /Porquê-Quando /Como /Quem Sistemas, macro funções, serviços e hiperligações Outros (Glossário, Indicadores, Apresentações do projeto, etc)
  69. 69. Resultados – conteúdos (1/3) • Específicos - por Stakeholder: Requisitos Benefícios Case Studies Investigadores: ORCID – justificação da escolha Administradores de Sist. de Gestão de C&T locais: o que é preciso fazer ligar um sistema local ao PTCRIS - custos
  70. 70. Resultados – forma (3/3) Pouco texto – com imagens /esquemas /fluxogramas /infografia Linguagem pouco técnica no primeiro nível Modelo misto: orientado ao utilizador (stakeholder) e ação
  71. 71. Arquitetura da Informação Início 1. Sobre o PTCRIS 2. Notícias 3. Eventos Navegação Institucional 8. Gestores de C&T 9. Gestores de SI 10. Invest. / Docentes 11. Media 12. Público Navegação por Público-alvo 4. Benefícios e custos 5. Serviços PTCRIS 6. Case Studies Case Studies Navegação de suporte ao PTCRIS 13. Facebook 14 .Twitter 15. Fórum 7. Recursos Navegação de colaboração Mapa do Site Perguntas frequentes Contactos Acessibilidade Imprensa Termos e condições Navegação de rodapé
  72. 72. Wireframe – Home Page
  73. 73. Sítio web PTCRIS 10-Set-14 81
  74. 74. Agradecimento: Os autores trabalho agradecem a disponibilidade de todos os entrevistados no âmbito deste trabalho bem como todos os seus contributos que foram decisivos para a criação de um website que vá ao encontra das necessidades dos utilizadores do PTCRIS.
  75. 75. Agenda Parte I • WP0: Ponto situação • WP1: Demo: interoperabilidade • WP1: Desconstruindo interoperabilidade • WP2 Novo sistema CV • Ciência-IUL (CRIS ISCTE) Parte II • WP3: Identificadores de Organizações • Ante projeto novo SI Grant Management • WP4: Fundações PTCRIS • WP10: Sítio web PTCRIS • Plano de atividades 2015 10-Set-14 83
  76. 76. Agradecimentos • Parceiros RCAAP (JC) e DeGóis (CSP) • Alcino Cunha (Professor / Investigador) • Filipa Alves (Alunamestradoem Comunicaçãode Ciênciada FCSH-UNL) • Associações participadas – ORCID (LH) – CASRAI (DB) – euroCRIS (NH) • Fornecedor de serviços ALTRAN (JS, AM, JC, VF) • Fornecedor de serviços KEEPS • CD-FCT (JNF, PP) • Equipa PTCRIS (AF, MG) • Equipa FCT-FCCN – Área Serviços Avançados, Utilizador RCTS, RCTSAAI (EP) – Área de Infraestruturas Aplicacionais (AG, JR) – Área de Serviços Avançados, SAW, (HM) • Equipa FCT-SIGCiência (JG, JC, BM) 10-Set-14 84 Todos os que me esqueci de mencionar!
  77. 77. Linhas gerais 2015 10-Set-14 85 Estudos e prospeção Prototipagem Implementação 2014 2015
  78. 78. WP 1 – Interoperabilidade • Fechar modelo de interoperabilidade (MI) • Implementar MI no RCAAP, DeGóis e ORCID • Alargamentos a outros sistemas: – Nacionais – Locais: ex: CRIS locais: CALL a 2 instituições • Documentar e facilitar adoção do MI 10-Set-14 86
  79. 79. WP2 – Plataforma de CV • Entrada em produção novo DeGóis • Integração de CV em sistema de Grant Mng • Melhorias contínuas – Integrações adicionais – Serviços adicionais 10-Set-14 87
  80. 80. WP3 – Gestão de identificadores: Org Ids • Estudo de estado de arte • Princípios, regras e processos • Base de dados de organizações nacionais • Serviços eletrónicos (piloto) • Serviços eletrónicos (produção) – DeGóis, RCAAP, RENATES 10-Set-14 88
  81. 81. WP5 – Base de dados de verdade • Alargamento da BD a outras áreas de negócio (DPP) • Utilização da BD para novo sistema de Grant Mng • Utilização da BD para sistema CRM 10-Set-14 89
  82. 82. Outros • CRIS Locais – Estudos para acelerar adoção de normativo PTCRIS – Piloto interoperabilidade (CALL) • RCAAP – Research portal – Dspace-CRIS 10-Set-14 90
  83. 83. Tabela execução técnica 10-Set-14 91 Nº Lista e Descrição dos Resultados Físicos Mês 1 a) Organização de sessão PTCRIS nas Jornadas FCCN b) Sítio Web PTCRIS c) Estratégia e plano para implementação de identificadores (Org Ids) 4 2 a) Implementação do modelo de interoperabilidade PTCRIS no RCAAP b) Plano e material de divulgação PTCRIS c) Implementação de identificadores nos sistemas nacionais 8 3 a) Novo sistema de CV DeGóis (produção) b) Research portal baseado no VIVO (piloto) c) DSpace-CRIS (piloto) 12
  84. 84. Cooperação é poder! Associem-se ao PTCRIS! 10-Set-14 92

Notas

  • TX presentes, anfitrião
    Ausentes
    Authenticus
    Lígia
    DGEEC
    Lino Santos
  • Working together across the higher education, further education and skills sectors, Jisc provides trusted advice and support, reduces sector costs across shared network, digital content, IT services and procurement negotiations, ensuring the sector stays ahead of the game with research and development for the future.
  • REF – In 2013 – the first time institutions submitted their research outputs for the new research assessment exercise. The aim for this time was to simply have something in place and get the house in order. For 2020 – the next time the exercise will happen, the aim is to have a smooth, well-oiled machine in place! For UK institutions this is critical; it’s what their funding will be built on. It is also when OS mandates really start to bite.

    With a bleak financial outlook for universities these demands are only likely to increase. There is an even more pressing need to manage resources efficiently and to be effective in identifying opportunities.
  • Also characterised by a lack of coordination, few shared structures, and with no regulated qualification framework.

    Funder systems: Joint e-submission systems (JeS); Research Fish (a research outcomes system), Research Outcomes System; Grants on the Web; REF; HESA.

    Despite all this data it is still incredibly hard to get any meaningful statistics or analytics out of the systems, and people are still left keying in information multiple times in each institution.
  • UK are the FIRST county outside of Canada to undertake the establishment of active CASRAI groups.  

    They are having active discussions with others in Europe – a handful of Northern European Countries interested in CASRAI and looking at adopting the approach …hence why CASRAI are now holding a meeting in Rome around EuroCRIS in May 2014.
  • – Governance. An identifier and agreed metadata must be governed and maintained. Regardless of how this is done, it must be done effectively.
    – Trust. Parties that rely on an identifier must trust that identifier. There are several key areas of trust: firstly, the assertion that the identifier refers to an organisation of interest (which may be supported by making the identifier human-readable), secondly, the assertion that data associated with an identifier is correct and thirdly that the identifier will continue to be maintained to reflect changes in organisational structure and status, etc.
    – Transparency. It must be clear how identifiers are issued, and to which organisations. Processes for the management and governance of identifiers must be defined and must be conducted transparently.
    – Temporal. Many use cases require information not just about the current list of organisations, but also about their histories. Institutions are created, merge, split, acquire each other, change status and are renamed. None of the identifiers discovered during this study adequately meet this requirement, although some do store some historical information.
    – Appropriate metadata. A Names Authority can issue organisational identifiers associated with a short list of metadata (eg name, deprecated-name, deprecated-nameID, City, County, PostalCode, URI), or an extended metadata list (eg including classifiers and organisational hierarchies). It would probably be easier and more beneficial for an organisational identifier names Authority to be limited to a small metadata set – the minimum required for effective identification.
  • Examined the landscape of organisational identifiers in the UK and identified 23 different IDs
    Based on interviews with key individuals
    Lots of detail on use cases for publishing, funders and institutions
  • Start simple. Don’t try to solve all use cases at once.
    UC4 was deleted but kept with numbering.
    UK focus but became clear that this is international.
  • Reviewed separately rather than together as originally planned.
  • TX presentes, anfitrião
    Ausentes
    Authenticus
    Lígia
    DGEEC
    Lino Santos
  • Melhor cobertura das ferramentas de backoffice

    Aumento da produtividade

    Maior integração e automatização de processos

  • TX presentes, anfitrião
    Ausentes
    Authenticus
    Lígia
    DGEEC
    Lino Santos
  • TX presentes, anfitrião
    Ausentes
    Authenticus
    Lígia
    DGEEC
    Lino Santos
  • O azul da tecnologia
    Os dois Cs para darem a ideia de camadas
    O C maior para reforçar a interoperabilidade
  • Versão final o slogan foi revisto por força a ser mais expressivo
  • TX presentes, anfitrião
    Ausentes
    Authenticus
    Lígia
    DGEEC
    Lino Santos
  • ×