Meeting Notes 3rd Consortium Meeting Berlin May 24, 2013

From pro-iBiosphere
Jump to: navigation, search
Seventh Framework Programme


Topic: 3rd Consortium Meeting pro-iBiosphere project
Work package: All work packages
Task: All tasks
Goal: Provide an overview of the project status (deliverables, milestones) ; follow-up of the project objectives; monitor progress of WP1-6 ad tasks; take actions for the next 3 months of the project
Participants: Consortium members
Mailing list: Consortium / all@pro-ibiosphere.eu
Author: Consortium
Place: Berlin, Germany
Time: 09.00–17.15
Date: 24 May 2013
Next meeting date: October 11, 2013, Berlin, Germany



Contents

Consortium Meeting Minutes – 24 May 2013

Deliverable Status: Final
Dissemination Level: Public

© Copyright 2012 The pro-iBiosphere Consortium, consisting of:

Naturalis Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Netherlands
NBGB Nationale Plantentuin van België, Belgium
FUB-BGBM Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Pensoft Pensoft Publishers Ltd, Bulgaria
Sigma Sigma Orionis, France
RBGK The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, United Kingdom
Plazi, Switzerland
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Germany


Disclaimer

All intellectual property rights are owned by the pro-iBiosphere consortium members and are protected by the applicable laws. Except where otherwise specified, all document contents are: “© pro-iBiosphere project - All rights reserved”. Reproduction is not authorised without prior written agreement.

All pro-iBiosphere consortium members have agreed to full publication of this document. The commercial use of any information contained in this document may require a license from the owner of that information.

All pro-iBiosphere consortium members are also committed to publish accurate and up to date information and take the greatest care to do so. However, the pro-iBiosphere consortium members cannot accept liability for any inaccuracies or omissions nor do they accept liability for any direct, indirect, special, consequential or other losses or damages of any kind arising out of the use of this information.


Revision Control

  • Version 1.0 by Stephanie Morales, 31-05-2013
  • Version 2.0 by Soraya Sierra, 03-06-2013
  • Version 2.1 by Eva Kralt, 06-06-2013

Participants

Name Organisation Short name
Donat Agosti Plazi DA
Laurence Bénichou MNHN LB
Sabrina Eckert FU-BGBM SE
Willi Egloff Plazi WE
Quentin Groom NBGB QG
Anton Guentsch FU-BGBM WB
Gregor Hagedorn Plazi GH
Jana Hoffman MfN JH
Don Kirkup RBGK DK
Eva Kralt Naturalis EK
Jeremy Miller Naturalis JM
Stephanie Morales SIGMA SM
Alan Paton RBGK AP
Lyubomir Penev Pensoft LP
Soraya Sierra Naturalis SS
Jan van Tol Naturalis JvT
Camille Torrenti SIGMA CT


Introduction

The 3rd pro-iBiosphere Consortium Meeting took place on the 24th of May 2013 in Berlin, Germany.

Workshop 1 on Requirements of users of Flora, Fauna or Mycota publications or services - Berlin, May 21st

By Don Kirkup, RBGK

Evaluation of workshop 1: "Requirements of users of Flora, Fauna or Mycota publications or services" has been presented; a table of information about use-cases' activities, the priorities of each use-case and the sources of information are shown. Follow up on this workshop will be to gather inputs and notes from the audience and facilitators. Subsequently, there will be further analysis for which all information will be uploaded on the wiki. RBGK will continue to develop the use-cases that have been discussed and gather feedback on the process and on the occasion of future workshops.

There has been a huge interest in the topic. Since various organisations, especially in the UK, could not attend the workshop, an additional workshop will be organised by RBGK in July 2013 in the UK (venue to be confirmed). Money left from the May workshops (budget keeper is Plazi) will be used for this purpose.

Next steps: To develop a list of identified stakeholders and at the same time include diverse audiences. RBGK will start sending invitations in June to various stakeholders. All consortium members are welcome to suggest further participants to RBGK. RBGK will update the wiki asap with information on this meeting.

Workshop 2 on Measuring and constraining the costs of delivering services - Berlin, May 22nd

By Soraya Sierra, Naturalis

This workshop has been a success ensured by the work accomplished during the last three months. The workshop was organised in close collaboration with RBGK. There was a particular interest from participants on this topic.

During the workshop, people felt very comfortable in smaller groups and they were keen to exchange ideas. Three different working groups were formed. The first group was composed by editors and publishers (facilitators: Soraya Sierra and Don Kirkup). The second one by data resources managers (facilitators: Alan Paton and Jeremy Miller). The third one by technology infrastructure and services (facilitators: Donat Agosti and Eva Kralt).

In order to gather information related to the subject, follow-up emails to the participants are to be sent within the next two weeks. The second group has already sent an email to the participants in order to gather the information needed. Donat Agosti will make a summary of the outputs of the group he was involved in.

Feedback will be received on the FTE, the activities, and major category of things concerning costs of delivering services. A template will be sent to workshop participants. The pictures will be shared on Google+ and Facebook.


Discussion

Led by Alan Paton, Don Kirkup and Anton Guentsch

At present we have a broad pattern but there is no overview of the total cost. How can we gather data if the cost pattern is for the development of fees? A great infrastructure implies running cost. A solution would be to receive incentives through a funding agency. A funding approach would enable us to ensure sustainability, we have to assess whether this is enough.

What we usually see is that after the construction of an e-infrastructure (i.e. the development phase), the cost factor becomes "less" important (i.e. the maintenance phase). At present we have a very scattered infrastructure. It is important to support the users and what is useful for them. Issue: maintenance expenditure?. You have to spend money to keep on maintaining and feeding the system that has been developed.

Another issue regards labour costs. The institutional infrastructure is overhead of the IT department. How are organisations going to sort this out? We need people to be explicit on how they take into account the overhead infrastructure. We then need to be clear and careful on what has to be counted. This measurement should be simple and less complicated. The best approach is to ask for an estimate.

Workshop 3 on Coordination and routes for cooperation - Berlin, May 23rd

By Gregor Hagedorn, JKI

This workshop used a different approach compared to the previous two workshops. The audience of the coordination workshop was very broad. For participants with no IT background it was challenging to follow the presentations and discussions. The idea of using post-it ( writing questions or points of discussion) to facilitate discussion was interesting. To sum up: various elements can be taken into account for the next time: the approach (consider using a similar approach to workshops one and two, allocate time to introduce and discuss different themes) and the audience (if non-technical staff is participating, providing examples can be very helpful) or perhaps divide groups into their respective professions).

Progress has been made on the identifiers discussions. The essential point is about the distribution and accessibility of data. This is something one can deliver and showcase. However, there is a lack of a source to provide high quality data. To overcome this impediment, stable identifiers are essential. This was initially brought up during the workshop and has resulted in intense discussions. Various points were raised on finding the best approach, reflecting on current challenges of data distribution and accessibility on the world wide web.


Discussion:

Led by Anton Guntsch

During the CETAF-ISTC (Information Science Technology) meeting we try to find hotspots and a multi dimensional space. We don’t require that everybody agrees on a MoU.

A hackathon on identifiers for specimens (exploring Linked open data) will be organised in Edinburgh. This approach allows the identification of physical objects, for example, if you click the user portal you get a RDF. You can implement this using PHP, XSLT. There are huge potentials on this approach. During the workshop in Edinburgh, we will discuss how to resolve the metadata and the registry issues. After having resolved the registry issue, we have to announce the existence of this approach. Various institutions will follow this approach. It is expected that others will follow.

For pro-iBiosphere, identification of priorities is necessary to move on to the next phase. It is important to start a sustainable trend, so that people can follow. In order to reach a wider audience, consortium members that are active participants in CETAF should present the pro-iBiosphere project. The project could then share its recommendations (2 pages maximum) with CETAF members and ask for their inputs. Action plan: Anton has circulated the project recommendations to ISTC members.


Planning for the next meeting on coordination routes:

For the next meeting on coordinatioun routes, it could be useful if pro-iBiosphere can bring together persons with different roles (e.g. IT person and the director of an organisation/institution) to agree on concrete issues. This approach is also used by BHL Europe and it was very useful.

The project should act as a driver to help stakeholders present good argument of their visions in order to achieve goals. The consortium need to work out on how to get great ideas and think about what their impact would be.

Regarding Biota The question on what the most important targets and priorities are and how should pro-iBiosphere draft a list on what is lacking and how to integrate it. Also, the consortium need to address the most important things that pro-iBiosphere needs to produce. In this regards, the consortium should make a list of expertise available and distribute work among the different players.

RBGK has proprietary data to get there from Darwin Core and ABCD Darwin core standards. Even though some information may not be displayed but most of the information are there. The vision of RBGK is there.


Next steps: Donat, Anton and Gregor will produce a list of recommendations with a first round of inputs for the deliverable based on the outputs of the workshop with elements of the MoU to get more support. It is important to make clear statements for stakeholders to access.

Social Media Strategy

By Camille Torrenti

In Feb. 2013 Sigma Orionis proposed to take the lead of the different project social media accounts. The first step was to analyse the status of the social networks to-date and to decide the specific actions to be undertaken to improve pro-iBiosphere presence on social media. The "Social Media Action Plan"document detailing the strategy to be put in place was shared with all partners in March 2013.

Key dissemination channel: The project should use the different social media as a way to disseminate project information and to gather feedback from attendees during and after workshops and from stakeholders on project reports. Note: LinkedIn also enables the possibility to add a pool that could be used to gather feedbacks from the community and to encourage participation of members.

Following the latest series of workshops held in Berlin, the workshops proceedings (photos, questionnaires, presentations, reports) should be disseminated through the project social media. Thanks to the promotion on the workshop hashtag, Twitter has been broadly used during the workshops while sharing comments and pictures. Action: Sigma will place the hashtag slide used to promote the event hashtag and to encourage participants to tweet on the project website on the internal documents section.

Improve content and membership: As of to-date we need to continue promotional efforts to increase membership. There is a poor involvement in the discussions on LinkedIn, we should reach at least 150 members to ensure a higher community involvement in the discussions.

Quentin Groom pointed out we could consider using Research Gate which is more targeted towards the research community and scientists and is good for launching and participating to discussions.

The main contributors and users of social media (Gregor, Quentin, Donat) should be more active than others (concrete and precise role as entertainer). Project partners should share content on the website while posting news on all project activities (reports, articles, events, biodiversity news, etc.), the RSS feed will ensure the content is also posted on Twitter, Facebook and Google +.

Google Calendar A Google Calendar has been created to monitor and ensure the contribution of partners in dissemination activities. The different project deliverables, milestones and prospective events have been added to this calendar to have a clear vision of project activities and outcomes and to enable Naturalis and Sigma to encourage partners to contribute to posting news on the website and discussions on social networks. This tool enables send reminder emails to the project email on gmail to inform Sigma and Naturalis on the latest project activities. Then, Sigma Orionis will send an email to the responsible partner (with Naturalis in copy) to remind him to post a news on the website and a discussion on social networks related to the activity.

The functionalities of sharing the calendar with partners and sending reminder emails will be investigated by Sigma and they will prepare a document to explain the use of Google + and the Google Calendar to be shared among partners. The link to the calendar will be placed on the project wiki to facilitate the accessibility.

Exploitation Plans, Business Models and Sustainability

By Camille Torrenti and Don Kirkup

Task 6.3 “Evaluating Business Models currently in use by partners” requires feedbacks from task 6.1 “Measuring and constraining the costs of delivering services” and task 6.2 “Identifying and measuring the benefits of delivering services”. The deliverables updated on a six months basis with partners’ inputs, directly provide inputs the task 6.4 “Towards Sustainability for Services”.

The first deliverable D6.3.1 “Report on diversity and strengths of existing Business Plans and discussion of sustainability”, submitted at M6, reported on the envisioned Exploitation Plans and Business Models at partners’ level. The second deliverable D6.3.2 to be submitted at M12 will provide a first set of Business Models at project level. For this purpose and so as to derive Business Models at project level, inputs from the other work packages (WP2, WP3 and WP4) will be crucial to complement the partners’ updates of Exploitation Plans and Business Models at their level.

Then, these Business Models at project level will be further analysed and discussed on the occasion of the “Meeting to evaluate Business Models currently in use by partners and relevant non-partners (MS22)” held during Meeting #4 from October 8 to 11, 2013.

The next steps (work plan) for task 6.3 in the next months are (i) partners’ updates of the exploitation plan, business models matrices and market background document, (ii) consolidation of partners’ inputs into D6.3.2 and (iii) submission of the deliverable in August (M12).

Partners’ asked Sigma and RBGK if it would be possible to place the Exploitation Plan, Business Models matrices and Mega-Science Platforms tables on Google docs to share them with project partners and to facilitate their contributions and updates.

So as to start preparing the Meeting (MS22) in October and to discuss on D6.3.2 and on Business Models at project level, Sigma and RBGK will have a Skype meeting in June (M10) and an office meeting in Nice in July (M11).

In the meanwhile, the event concept and objectives of the meeting along with a draft agenda and the list of main stakeholders to be invited will be prepared. There should be financial experts attending the meeting as well, on the occasion of the previous consortium meeting on February 15 in Leiden, the name of Richard Lane was mentioned. In case some project partners have any suggestions regarding other expert in costs and finance, please provide Sigma and RBGK with suggested candidates.


Update on "Semantic integration of biodiversity literature", Task 3.3

By Jana Hoffman, MfN

The main point was to understand the position and status of MfN as partners are concerned about the incurred delays as MfN is still trying to find someone to hire to take care of this task:

Jana is sorting out this issue on task management. The communication and work was left when Henning left the project. MfN tried to ensure an on-going communication with project partners. Jana, will be responsible with communication while MfN is trying to find a technical person to hire for the project. Decisions were made of this discussion. Two plans were proposed by the consortium.

Plan A: The plan of MfN to hire a person to work part-time within the next two months . However, if Plan A fails and MfN cannot find anyone to work on the technical part of the project, the money could be transferred to Plazi as a Plan B solution.

As to T3.3, the project coordinator will contact the project officer to inform him about this issue and to ask him if the project can delay the deliverable for two months. Gregor will try to provide assistance to Jana for the deliverable as it is delayed and could not be completed on time.

Progress on pilot 1: Interoperability model between PLAZI and the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy based on transformations between XML-repositories and CDM-stores

By Anton Guentsch, FUB-BGBM

FUB-BGBM workflow begins with markup the data. Following this process, the data is nested in the repository for the next process of treatments (i.e. a semi automatic process - CDM) The aim is to do the markup of as many data as possible. FUN-BGBM wants to streamline the process; monitor and improve the data by setting minimum requirements (markup standards); define and enforce data integrity rules. In general, FUB-BGBM needs to identify necessary requirements, such as nomenclature, material citations, further taxon-level data, distribution, references, descriptive data and etc.

FUB-BGBM aims is to provide not only the pilot but to deliver it afterwards. BGBM has to make sure the markup software is in the state that can be recommended to other people. However, a lot of support is still needed. The target format (TaxonX) needs further improvement and should enforce a higher degree of integrity. BGBM suggests an incremental loop that is generated by the configuration of computer technology instead of the human scientist. More concrete outcomes should be available in October.

Meeting #4 (8-11 October) will be the responsibilities of FUB-BGBM. BGBM still needs to identify topics and then invite people. Topics such as: 1) Improvement on TaxonX 2) System providing semantic relations between elements/concepts used in different domains 3) Other interesting topics still need to be discussed

BGBM would like to start the initial phase of meeting#4 in a main conference before breaking out into the smaller parts. Smaller groups will address the complexity of markup. Feedback and communications with the IT team and content officer involve in CDM are important to think up the right set up of the meeting, Human interface to ensure the system can be accessible in different angles and to make things better are also topics in which FUB-BGBM would like to address during meeting #4. So as to ensure a quality control we can make better use of schemas, the validation of important process. Then many errors can be corrected long before.

At this stage, BGBM is trying to find out who is responsible on the further infrastructure and how to create certain workflows. There are two prominent tools to be use: Pensoft tool and GoldenGate. Pensoft tool is using a different approach. This tool is designed for publishing while GoldenGATE is universal (ie. it is richer). BGBM is going to republish the literatures of Marianne and Sylvia, Carol, Flora Solvakia (three volumes in total) using different tools; archiving and deliver these into Plazi and other websites ( in this case, the result will be tripled) for an efficient way of publishing. BGBM believes that this will be a good business result as it is durable and they are creating a clean text (i.e. minimal to no errors).

Progress on pilot 2: Interoperability model between taxon treatments from both legacy and prospective literature from three organismic domains (fungi, plants and animals)

Various speakers

Chilopoda

Lyubomir Penev

The pilot was presented on the occasion of the workshop on Coordination and routes for cooperation; see the presentations for futher details.

They are progressing and are half way to mark-up treatments.

Mistletoe

Don Kirkup

They are finished with FTA. Should be able to provide more outputs in two weeks with feedback on Golden Gate.

Ants

Donat Agosti

It will be a fantastic pilot using the same system. For the references, the idea is to move them from one to the other.

The treatments are all marked up, that took a huge amount of time. They are hence trying to find a treatment to facilitate marking so there is still work needed to get the system to work. It is difficult to apply Golden Gate as the mark-up is 10 times more complicated for publications and to add more characters. They will see when they can complete the publications.

Donat has been in contact with Hong Cui, they are in the process of hiring people so she is not very responsive at the moment.

Spiders

Jeremy Miller
Jeremy will be going to Taiwan for the International Congress on Arachnology.

Chenopodium (Goosefoots)

Quentin Groom

Bryophyta - Calymperaceae

http://wiki.pro-ibiosphere.eu/w/media/f/f1/Sylvia_Mota_de_Oliveira_pilot.pdf Sylvia Mota de Oliveira]

Fungi - Russulaceae

Eva Kralt on behalf of Joseph Geml

Progress on pilot 3: Common query/response model for automated registration of higher plants (International Plant Names Index, IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum, MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank)

By Lyubomir Penev

We can create a common model and internal schema, using the system of hipni. The big question is Microbank, it is committed to make ? Everything is more or less agreed upon but it doesn’t go fast. It is not about coordination, there is a competition. Jan will talk to Pedoclair.

RBGK uses another different approach, we could work with one and switch with another. You should be careful when you put things into Golden Gate. You need to format the text and got to think quite hard.


Progress on pilot 4: Revision of a tool (CharaParser) that generates identification keys by reusing morphological characters from published species descriptions

By Donat Agosti

GoldenGate is very specialized, like Microsoft for instance. There is a lot of context.

Progress & status of deliverables / personnel hired or to be hired / announcements concerning these deliverables (period May - October 2013)

Soraya Sierra - Naturalis

Periodic report (Year 1) and project review meeting The Periodic report should be submitted until Oct 31st the latest (60 days grace period) to the European Commission. This report is the one which is closely looked into and taken into account by the European Commission.

Soraya received the names and contact of reviewers and will send the contacts to project partners to inform them on who they are. The project has the possibility to reject them and ask for other reviewers in case there could be a conflict of interest or any issue.

Regarding the review meeting held on that will be held on November 19, 2013 in Brussels, partners should meet the day before for a half day to discuss the presentations and what they are going to talk about. The participants to the review should be the partners who can explain the tasks and outcomes, in general they are the Work Package leaders. The review preparation meeting could be organized at NBGB, Quentin will investigate if a room can be booked for this purpose.

Sigma will provide the agenda for the meeting preparation and the review meeting.

Donat Agosti - Plazi

Willi Egloff - Plazi

Quentin Groom - NBGB

Don Kirkup - RBGK

Lyubomir Penev - Pensoft

Stephanie Morales - Sigma Orionis

Report on dissemination, communication and public awareness (due August)

The project is now in its promotional phase to increase the project visibility and awareness among biodiversity stakeholders. This promotional phase has already been launched through the promotion of the project groups on social media (see above) and with the creation of the new dissemination database (dissemination@pro-ibiosphere.eu) consolidating (i) project events participants, (ii) other initiatives contacts, (iii) identified experts during the preparation of the project and (iv) partners’ contacts. This database has been used to disseminate the second eNewsletter in April (M8) and will be used to invite potential participants to the Final workshop, promote the project results, a.o.

The importance of raising awareness has been mentioned this morning (see above) to ensure the major biodiversity actors, either experts and organisations are aware of the project activities, objectives and to involve them in the project while inviting them to events and asking for their feedbacks and expertise on project reports. So as to ensure project visibility, all project partners have a role to play in communicating and promoting the project to their contacts, on the social networks, on the occasion of the participation to events, etc.

All dissemination activities undertaken by the project will be reported in the annual deliverable D5.2 which 1st release, D5.2.1 will be submitted to the European Commission in August (M12). Sigma will gather all partners’ contributions, dissemination activities and all dissemination tools and report produced by the project and will include them in the report. The Dissemination and Communication Implementation Plan will be updated and included in D5.2.1 along with the Social Media Action Plan.

Pensoft and Plazi should write a text on the features, activities and updates of both the wiki and the website and share it with Sigma so they can include the texts in the report. If partners have been involved in dissemination activities in favour of pro-iBiosphere, they should provide Sigma with as much information as they have (sending email blasts for example…).

Anton Guentsch - BGBM

Update on milestones (period May - October 2013), including preparations, progress, logistics, challenges, a.o.

Don Kirkup - RBGK

Stephanie Morales - Sigma Orionis

First report on articles and contributions to events (due August)

Partners should all contribute to at least 2 articles or oral contributions (see DoW). Please fill-in the table on Google Docs (also accessible in the wiki) each time you make a new contribution and send Sigma Orionis the related material (PPT presentation, article) to be included in the report. As of today the project has already been involved in nine other events and partners published two articles on the project so far. Two partners have not been contributing either to the participation to other events or to the release of articles. RBGK will participate to an online workshop on May 26 and will add his contribution. Regarding MfN contribution, it should be contributing too with the arrival of a newly hired person.

BGBM has an article on pro-iBiosphere under submission, the person in charge at BGBM needs to liaise with Marco Roos and Jan van Tol for pro-iBiosphere credits. In the meantime, Anton will add the prospective contribution to the table on partners contributions to events and articles on Google docs that can be reached on the wiki by following this link.

ICT2013 ICT2013 is the major event organized by DG CONNECT every 2 years (the so-called ICT Event). This year it will be held in Vilnius, Lithuania from November 6-8, 2013.

It will include a conference, and exhibition, networking sessions and an investment forum and will welcome more than 4000 delegates (researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, industry representatives, young people and politicians).

The benefits of participating to this event for project partners are (i) the presence of high level speakers from Europe and around the world, (ii) the opportunity to use the ICT event to widely promote our project to a wide audience, to showcase the project outcomes to be exposed to participants’ view, (iii) to meet delegates with common or similar topical interests for potential collaboration and (iv) develop possible synergies with other projects.

The project, collaboration with e-ScienceTalk project* and other projects (OpenUp!, other may join later), applied for a networking session on “What does the future hold for e-science and big data?” (40 minutes). It will also apply to hold a booth in collaboration with e-ScienceTalk (before June 7). Sigma Orionis will keep partners informed on the results of the proposal for the networking session and booth.

Partners are encouraged to rapidly book hotels and plane tickets if they wish you participate at it is a busy week with lots of participants. Sigma Orionis will attend ICT 2013.

Donat Agosti - Plazi

Soraya Sierra - Naturalis

Conclusions

All participants

Next Consortium meeting will be 11th of October. Partners in charge of organizing workshops need to be in contact with BGBM to book rooms. BGBM will create a Meeting 4 page on the project wiki.

Review and agreement on the Action Plan

Action Plan

Name Task Timeline
Laurence Bénichou To extract relevant information from publishing reports to consortium achieved (end of May)
Camille Torrenti To submit the exhibition booth proposal for ICT 2013 in collaboration with e-ScienceTalk first week of June - achieved
Consortium To decide on the participation of ICT 2013 major DG CONNECT event from November 6-9 in Vilnius, Lithuania once decided, to book tickets and accommodation preferably by end of August beginning of September.
Eva Kralt To send excel file on the cost workshop 2 to the participants involved once facilitators agreed on the content (Alan will help with the analysis) achieved (awaiting replies)
Soraya Sierra To send Workshop 2 notes to Don second week of June - achieved
Lyubomir Penev To update the project dissemination database with the contacts of the last workshops participants achieved
Camille Torrenti, Don Kirkup and Alan Paton To initiate Skype call prior to the office meeting on the 4th of July in Nice to discuss task 6.3 (deliverable 6.3.2) and meeting 4 in Berlin (MS22) achieved
Camille Torrenti, Don Kirkup and Alan Paton Share D6.3.2 report matrices and guidelines on the wiki for partners' updates and inputs (Exploitation Plans, Business Models and Market Background) achieved
Consortium All partners should send a promotional email to their contacts to invite them to join pro-iBiosphere groups on social media (email provided by Sigma Orionis) email reminder sent by Stephanie to consortium
Stephanie Morales An email blast will be sent to the dissemination database to promote the project groups on social media achieved
Eva Kralt Ensuring workshop proceedings (pictures, questionnaire, presentation and reports) are shared in pro-iBiosphere dissemination channels (social media, website, wiki) achieved
Stephanie Morales Sigma Orionis will remind all partners to post news on the project website through the use of Google Calendar, RSS feed allow spreading automatically the information to social media all along the project period
Stephanie Morales Sigma Orionis will prepare and send guidelines to all partners on the use and functionalities of the social media groups (in particular Google +) all along the project period
Stephanie Morales Will organize a Skype meeting with Naturalis to discuss Google Calendar application achieved
Donat Agosti, Gregor Hagdorn and Anton Guentsch To change MoU to a list of recommendations By 8-11 October 2013
Anton Guentsch To distribute the list of recommendation via email after the workshop (11th October 2013) and discuss it further during the next ISTC meeting in February 2014. Achieved, 11 October
Jan van Tol and Soraya Sierra To send a representative of Naturalis to the Hackathon (Semantic web meeting in Edinburgh, June 4-5) achieved
Lyubomir Penev To contact Mycobank (if needed Jan van Tol or Soraya to talk to Petro Crouss regarding Mycobank, the results will be communicated to Pensoft and other partners involved in the task achieved
Consortium To contribute, review the Best Practices Report End of May - achieved
Soraya Sierra, Consortium To deliver the management report in May . Consortium to provide information of their organisation achieved (end of May)
Soraya Sierra To circulate the names of the EU reviewers to the consortium achieved
Work Package Leaders To meet for a preparatory meeting at NBGB in Belgium prior to the review meeting held on November 19, 2013 18 November
Work Package Leaders and Sigma To circulate the slides of 19 November review meeting; Sigma will help elaborate the agenda for the review meeting and partners' meeting beginning of November
MfN Plan A: To hire somebody within two months; Plan B : To give up the money to other partners, for instance, to Plazi If unsuccessful, MfN will proceed to Plan B within two months: Latest July- achieved
Donat Agosti To hire a new staff member to help with deliverables around July to August, Dr. David Patterson will assist in the writing of the deliverables of Plazi
RBGK To hire a new staff Charlottes Johns will koin the project end of October
Anton or Sabrina To create a wiki page with content on meeting 4 achieved
RBGK To schedule a stakeholder workshop between mid of June and July 2013- achieved via email correspondences and a meeting was not necessary in the end
Consortium To contribute at least two items (articles and/or reports) and to report it to Sigma (fill in information on Google Docs and send PPT presentations) before the end of the project
Consortium To update the different dissemination contributions documents here (list of other biodiversity initiatives, dissemination contacts, list of social networks, list of other dissemination activities) for the first project dissemination report D5.2.1 before the end of June- achieved
Eva Kralt To send the evaluation questionnaire to the participants by June -Achieved
Eva Kralt & Pensoft Team To upload presentations slides of Meeting of May achieved
Soraya Sierra To talk to Marco Ros regarding XML publication achieved (last week of May)
The next meeting of the consortium in Berlin October 11