Meeting Notes 4th Consortium Meeting Berlin October 2013
|Topic:||4th Consortium Meeting pro-iBiosphere project|
|Work package:||All work packages|
|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|
|Mailing list:||Consortium / firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Date:||11 October 2013|
|Next meeting date:||February 13 2014, Berlin, Germany|
- 1 Consortium Meeting Minutes – 13 February 2014
- 2 Participants
- 3 Introduction
- 4 Signing of Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS)
- 5 Results and conclusions of pro-iBiosphere workshops
- 5.1 Workshop 1 (M4.1): How to improve technical cooperation and interoperability at the e-infrastructure - Oct. 8, 2013
- 5.2 Workshop 2 (M4.2): How to promote and foster the development & adoption of common mark-up standards & interoperability between schemas - Oct. 8, 2013
- 5.3 Workshop 3 (M6.2.2): Workshop on user engagement and benefits - Oct. 9, 2013
- 5.4 Workshop 4 (M6.3.2): Towards sustainability towards service: Meeting to evaluate business models currently in use by partners and relevant non-partners - Oct. 10, 2013
- 6 Progress on pilots
- 7 Preparation of pro-iBiosphere workshops in February 2014
- 8 Progress & status of deliverables / personnel hired or to be hired / announcements concerning these deliverables period : Oct. to Feb. 2013)
- 9 WP5 - Dissemination, communication and public awareness
- 10 ORCID/Figshare presentation - Quentin Groom (NBGB)
- 11 Action Plan
Consortium Meeting Minutes – 13 February 2014
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
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.
- Version 1.0 by Stephanie Morales, 31-10-2013
- Version 1.1 by Eva Kralt, 01-11-2013
|Jan van Tol||Naturalis||JvT|
The 4th pro-iBiosphere Consortium Meeting took place on the 11th of October 2013 in Berlin, Germany.
Signing of Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS)
The signing of the Declaration of coordination and cooperation on Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS) at the project Final event among partners and stakeholders from other institutions was suggested. The Declaration draft could be sent to external stakeholders and should ultimately signed by directors.
The possibility of launching a joint pro-iBiosphere-CETAF ISTC could be envisaged. It has been decided that CETAF members will be involved in the drafting of this document from now on. Anton Güntsch, BGBM, will distribute the draft within CETAF and update the consortium regarding their comments of the declaration draft; he will liaise with Donat and discuss the Declaration further during the next ISTC meeting in March 2014.
Results and conclusions of pro-iBiosphere workshops
Workshop 1 (M4.1): How to improve technical cooperation and interoperability at the e-infrastructure - Oct. 8, 2013
By Anton Guentsh, FU-BGBM
The workshop has been divided into 2 groups (see workshop page here)
Group 2 (Anton was present): The question asked to participants was “what is it about?”
Participants have been divided into two groups, on one side the service providers and on the other the scientists
Group 2 (scientists) focused on the service registries and the BiodiversityCatalogue. The idea of this BiodiversityCatalogue is to bring these two agents in a single place. This catalogue is a web service and present registries services with a search functionality and to inform users on their availability. It is hence a service by itself, enabling users to consult the catalogue and get information.
So as to testing this catalogue, a post-it session has been organised, participants have been asked to order their suggestions in three broad areas (3 sub-groups) being (i) Policies and quality control, (ii) Service metadata and (iii) User interface improvements.
Following this workshop, there have been major agreements among participants (to be added in the upcoming report). The feedbacks on the catalogue has been positive as it is presented in a very structured way, feedback and comments to be highlighted are:
1. The catalogue has a broad reach and everybody should use it
2. The project should investigate ways of synchronising the catalogue with other similar systems (contacting other initiatives such as EU-BON for example)
3. The catalogue is self-owned, therefore, once it will become more popular, it would need some kind of curation. The first step should be to create this critical mass and try to organise it before going into curation.
By the end of October 2013, 7 institutions committed to have http-URIs implemented, namely, RBGE, BGBM, MfN, Kew, MHNM, Plazi and NBGB, which will represent a nice success. Naturalis is likely to implement it as well and therefore could be added to the list. The reasons for this success owe to the fact that this system is easy and flexible to implement (not a bit technical thing) and it enables institutions to save a lot of money. Also, there is a certain trust in people implementing it leading to a certain confidence.
The role of pro-iBiosphere is to meet a certain mark, especially on the Best Practices in which the project has been circulating since June 2012. pro-iBiosphere has been involved in the discussion forum, allowing the discussion and reaching a certain community consensus. The aim is to open up these identifiers, allowing aggregation of data and facilitating discovery of collection objects exposed through http-URIs. BGBM created and implemented a little pilot application on what can be and should be done. The project needs to first establish a clearer specification of the attributes to be contained in the sitemap as well as a clearer picture of the use cases.
The important discussion is to ensure communication about what is a stable URI as it is changing and breaking all the time. The major concern is all about social fears in the community. This is a label that should be placed in the front of the URI for social communication while making it clear that the importance is not about the technical part but the management one. It is key to ensure institutional commitment. For instance, the project communicates collectively to GBIF on their properties and solves the problem with GBIF to improve communication and share URI.
Then, a part of CETAF discussion will be on stable identifiers.
Workshop 2 (M4.2): How to promote and foster the development & adoption of common mark-up standards & interoperability between schemas - Oct. 8, 2013
By Donat Agosti, Plazi
A questionnaire was prepared and sent before to participants to gather their views on the workshop goals. It included all questions that would be asked during the workshop (see workshop page here).
There have been a total number of 20 participants.
An online document has been shared on Google Docs to enable participants to share their comments. All participants could then add information online, which also facilitated notes taking during the workshop. Speakers have been asked to contribute with 5 minutes PowerPoint presentations in the morning (see agenda) to discuss on the pilots. The discussion focussed on the number of journals and treatments uploaded on CDM.
As a result, there is lots of material that can be worked on. The import from RBGK is not yet in place nor the inputs from Flora Malesiana. Participants realised it is not an easy task to do that, the major issues concern (i) Markup, (ii) Scaling, (iii) Human Interface and (iv) Mark-up quality. The issue is not only about the system but also the quality of the interfaces and the time it takes. Therefore, different levels must be envisaged and compared.
By December a document will be prepared on the issue of mark-up quality.
This is a time consuming task however there are also other issues such as OCR, inputs documents that have not been well defined. We should find people who are more specialised and, for instance, see, on the occasion of the February series of workshops, what kind of improvements and people can be involved, for example, people from the industry.
Workshop 3 (M6.2.2): Workshop on user engagement and benefits - Oct. 9, 2013
By Alan Paton, RBGK
RBGK presented the context of WP6 and the agenda (see the workshop page here).
Participants have been divided into two groups, (i) partners group and (ii) external invitees group.
The morning session was dedicated to filling-in a table showing what are the benefits and quantifying them. It has been difficult to find real end-users; external participants were a bit too close to taxonomists. The aim of the exercise was to try to find uses and propose related current services. Some participants use the services directly and other produce their own services. Measurements proved to be difficult, resulting in an incomplete matrix. However, matrices have been developed.
The afternoon session was dedicated to future iBiosphere impact and priorities. This session has been indeed more difficult for non-partners and more time has been spent on the constraints.
On the user side, they do not think that the technology is the main issue problem but the sociology. For many of these users, they wonder whether the broad users will be involved and how to hold information and making it available.
The workshop gathered in- and outside views while addressing users issues and identifying some gaps regarding the non-functional aspects of the project. There have been lots of outputs at the end of the day following the workshop.
When presenting the project, we should be aware that the vision is to have that implemented and to have data ownership in a portal. The information would be spread and someone would be able to publish a new PDF while someone else is trying to implement it again in the system. This is about revision and providing inputs from scientists, users, categorizing what they need. It is important for the project to engage with the end users.
The May workshop was about who the users are and what kind of information they needed. We found out that users want the same as we want to make for the project. In the future, we should develop use case on linking with the end users and have an additional meeting to gather additional information.
The deliverable will be divided into two parts and it has been decided to deliver both deliverables for November so that they would be available for the February meeting.
Workshop 4 (M6.3.2): Towards sustainability towards service: Meeting to evaluate business models currently in use by partners and relevant non-partners - Oct. 10, 2013
By Camille Torrenti
Sigma Orionis presented the concept of the workshop, the agenda and the sessions (see the workshop page here).
The aim of the morning session was to develop a list of sub-service for each identified service at partners’ level and to assess the threats and opportunities when considering the perspective of a “iBiosphere enterprise”. The aim of the afternoon session was to analyse the benefits and constraints of each potential activities identified at project level. The workshop outputs will provide a first insight of potential business model(s) at project’s level.
The audiences have been split into four groups working on a specific partner’s services in the morning and on a specific project’s activity in the afternoon. For the afternoon session, additional activities have been firstly identified by partners and then, the most important activities have been selected following a vote by participants. Then the audience has been separated into groups and the outputs have been consolidated into a matrix for the activities.
The working groups generated lots of inputs that will be consolidated into an event report. These inputs will also be included in the next D6.3 deliverable to be submitted in February 2013.
The next steps following this workshop are:
1st step: consolidating inputs
- Send pictures to each rapporteur that will report on their working group
- Prepare and share the report among partners
2nd step: prepare inputs for D6.3.3
- Finalize list of services and sub-services
- Pick one sub-service and prepare a Business model using the Business model canvas (RBGK and Sigma will group sub-services and identify important ones)
- Map each Business Models to the Opportunities and Threats Services
- Report on the list of activities
At the end of the workshop, a PechaKucha session was organised, allowing participants to share their vision of pro-iBiosphere in 2-3 minutes. This format allows presentations to be concise and fast paced.
- Objectives have been achieved.
- A lot has been done (more than 20 mapping)
- Participants have been very active
- External participants: getting new perception and new inputs
An unexpected outcome of this event is that it is interesting to analyse what participants perceived as difficult when they represent challenges. We have to come up with a conclusion by four months so these challenges must be coped with and envisaged. RBGK suggested that it can be a discussion for the February meeting to envisage and analyse these issues and try to resolve them.
Regarding the vision, the message shared by participants can help us to better define the vision, in particular for the external stakeholders while improving it with comments.
Report will be shared presenting the meeting outputs and a clear work plan has been agreed on.
The recommendations shared to improve future workshops are:
- Using online software for mapping to save time and enable instant analysis.
- To clearly provide definitions and examples to participants to enable them to better understand what is expecting from them (difficulties with the business model concept and canvas in particular).
Participants generally appreciated the methodology and exercise while taking time and thinking about it. They agreed in unison that the project should create a mind-set to regularly think about it.
Progress on pilots
The pilots are a kind of experimental area to find solutions to issues and to make specifications on how to improve the system. For this reason, the one remaining year could be aimed at testing the workflow so as to reach good results and outputs.
A clear requirement of software should be defined and integrity rules should be implemented in order to achieve these goals. There is a way to improve the process while monitoring partners’ quality of contribution. The social level would not work without these rules. An overall vision of the workflow within rules should be created and a new procedure could then be implemented. A document with minimum mark-up requirements has already been prepared. There is also a document on treatments available detailing and clarifying efforts to create an RDF.
We have a mark-up that can import into Plazi or CDM while importing a file and converting it into the right format. There are web services registered to do that such as GoldenGate, which has these nice tools to import these data. In the CDM, data are first tested and if there are errors and it is not processable, the upload is cancelled. We should not confuse errors with a system problem.
At this stage, the project seeks to look out for expert who could do the markup and help to figure out the human interface. The linking treatments issue is part of the problem. There is a reference from treatments to treatments, URIs that are already available are stored and Cited treatments can be linked-up such data to the treatment. This would be available by December.
Another issue is the negotiated interchange, when interchanging an RDF to integrate various XML schemas. In order to express data not in a taxon-X format easily, the re-use of the taxon-X mark-ups within an RDF context is essential.. It can express semantics, data but is difficult to mark-up to RDF. An incomplete markup keeps the markup while allowing the user to re-enter it.
A solution to the problem would be to keep the markup into the XML schema. As a client, you might not know how to get into the system and change it. So dataset should be replaced by RDF, this represents a migration strategy but it is very important for mark-ups.
There is a Plazi-Pensoft workshop on Monday on RDF exporting. They started to model the XML markup segments. The RDF can become a way to integrate information at metadata and content level while doing it one by one. A draft strategy for interoperability will be necessary for task 4.2. This is coming to the same conclusion about treatments and literature than RDF. There will be a 4-days Hackaton with ZooBank in Sofia.
Regarding the Charaparser pilot, there is a high demand for character data by users. It is a very difficult and demanding pilot due to the complexity of the task and the state of the program. One pilot is still in progress and it is planned to be delivered by Dec. 2013. The project does not have resources available for a modified Charaparser version However, there might be a possibility to include Fungi pilot towards a modified Charaparser version, this will depend on the time and effort as there are limited resources for necessary development.
Status of the pilots:
The promotion of interoperability represents another issue, interoperability of schemas need to be discussed and actively promoted. The project partners have the tools and the pilots to make this conversion. For MycoBank, the finalization is still unclear but the other ones should be finalized on time in December. Regarding the pilots, the goal is to have a tool for marking up, while combining all these different characters.
In the upcoming D4.2 report, there should be at least two pilot studies published: (i) Eupolybothrus and (ii) Anochetus, there might be three with the (iii) Chenopodium.
D4.2 report will be ready on time, an outline is available on Google doc.
The protocols and implementation standards have been agreed upon. We have agreed on stable http URI identifiers and agreed to use Darwin Core Archive and the common query response model. D4.2 report will focus on best practices and lessons learned and 2-3 publications will be released by December 2013. The work on the pilots will be extended after December and will be presented to the Final event in NBGB in June 2014.
The Chenopodium vulvaria L. pilot is ready.
Regarding the pilot on spiders, the work has been done A balance between our effort and output will need to be addressed. Jeremy Miller suggests to implement it on Plazi CDM. In order to arise interest in the CDM, BGBM could showcase the amazing thing CDM can do in workflows and showing some CDM outputs. BGBM will inform the consortium of the coming demo of CDM. That can be shown in the next meeting while present the features, etc.. Pensoft will support this pilot to show how literature can be digitalized (e.g. having the Flora Malesiana structured). This pilot is indeed of high value and should be made visible. About the markup and treatment in XML in Plazi, books will be published (if copyright issues are solved) in a pleasant and readable form. Pensoft is willing to help on this as they have the possibility to do that with their technology while adding annotations.
Preparation of pro-iBiosphere workshops in February 2014
Workshop 1: Workshop with institutions involved in the mark-up of biodiversity literature
By Daniel Mietchen, MfN
MfN presented the week organisation and agenda of workshop 1; a first draft of the report should be available by the end of next week.
The pilots should be presented on the occasion of this workshop in order to find the right partners to to handle technical issues.
At first, the aim of this workshop was to involve BHL Europe, this is why BHL experts are expected. Daniel Mietchen is in contact with BHL to to get inputs on their experience and expertise and try to involve them in the workshop in February 2014. There may also be an interest for inspirational project close to other projects such as Europeana. However, the workshop should not only rely on BHL inputs.
The key of the task is the use and sharing of their experience, hence it will be beneficial to ensure the participation of BHL of the workshop in February 2014.
As regards to the logistics, there will be 50 people maximum. There is a number of hotels nearby, MfN willmake a block reservation by the end of October 2013.
Daniel Mietchen is in contact with people doing scanning and will try to find out what kind of markup they are doing.
Workshop on towards sustainability for services alternative business models
By Don Kirkup, RBGK
This task is starting at M15, RBGK will consolidate the first outputs of workshops 3 and 4 to find out more.
The presence of consortium members to this upcoming workshop is key so this is why it has been decided that it should be organised in Berlin.
Progress & status of deliverables / personnel hired or to be hired / announcements concerning these deliverables period : Oct. to Feb. 2013)
By Soraya Sierra, Naturalis
Planned activities and resources for year 2
Partners should follow Work Package 1 format of content to produce their input for the periodic report.
A Google Drive template has been circulated to plan the activities and resources for year 2. This document has been prepared following a request from the project officer for the review meeting which will comprise two specific sessions: (i) session 1 on what we have done so far and the use of resources and (ii) session 6 on how are we going to use the resources and the activities in the next year.
Project partners should convey a clear message on what has been done in the first project and what is planned in the next project period.
The first tab is the total budget per partner. The limitation of indirect costs is 7% and the deadline to submit Form C on ECAS is end of October 2013. There are 60 days to submit the periodic report and the costs to the European Commission. The second tab is the person month per partner. For auditors, each partner should be able to provide a time sheet with the % work for the project and what the other % represent to the European Commission per day.
This document is informative to Naturalis in order to prepare the review meeting on the 19th of November 2013. It will not be included into the periodic report.
Sigma will help Naturalis in making the presentations for Session 1 and Session 6. Partners should prepare presentation regarding the different resources.
Quality check of the deliverables
The project should find someone that can check the quality of deliverables and reports, preferably a native English speaker that could check words, sentences, the overall understanding and coherence of documents.
A suggestion is to shorten the deliverables and reports, which would really improve the quality control.
Reports could be published on journals to communicate on project outcomes, Daniel Mietchen, MfN, plans to write D3.3 in a way it can be published on journals.
Partners agreed that upcoming reports could be written in an article format with links on the web for complementary details. As long as there is a manuscript, this is conceivable.
WP5 - Dissemination, communication and public awareness
Social media action plan - guidelines and results
By Stephanie Morales, Sigma
Sigma Orionis first reminded partners that the project is in the visibility-increasing phase after one year of project activities and the availability of first project results. Therefore the consortium must ensure content is shared on the different social media channels and that regular promotional phases should be undertaken to ensure awareness of project activities and results and to keep on attracting new members.
So as to facilitate contribution of partners on these different social media channels, the guidelines have been placed on the wiki (link) further detailing the use of the different social media tools along with the Social Media Action Plan (link to the SMAP).
Then, Sigma Orionis presented the latest set of actions taken in the last months (Facebook has been linked to Twitter, a share functionality has been added to news posted on the website…) and reviewed the status of content and membership of the different social media tools. Sigma Orionis thanked all partners for their contributions, as there has been an increase of the content and news shared by partners and the promotional efforts of the project ensured a steady growth of membership over the last 6 months. As regards to LinkedIn, interaction is still low due to low membership (58 members), contributions from members usually occur with communities of at least 150 members. As a result, further efforts must be undertaken in order to increase membership and to ensure content is regularly shared on LinkedIn.
To conclude, Sigma Orionis encouraged partners to continue their efforts in promoting and contributing to social media and reminded partners to contribute to at least one news or discussion per month on the website and/or on social media.
Daniel Mietchen suggested to gather additional information on retweet, citation and to investigate the idea of creating a list on Twitter.
Partners' contributions to external events
By Stephanie Morales, Sigma
As stated in the project DoW, all project partners should at least contribute to at least 2 publications and/or oral contributions on the occasion of external events during the project period. Sigma Orionis, as the dissemination leader and responsible for submitting D5.2.1, should keep track of all partners’ contributions to dissemination activities for reporting purposes. Therefore, tables have been placed on the wiki to enable partners to report on their contributions when they contribute to an external event (not a project event, link), when they publish an article (link) and when they contribute to any other dissemination activity (email blast, press releases, news shared on other websites…, link). Guidelines for partners’ contributions have also been added to the wiki to remind partners on the different steps to follow when reporting on their contribution (link).
In the first project period, the consortium participated in 13 events, published 2 articles and 4 press releases. Sigma Orionis informed partners that more press released should be submitted in the second project period following the achievement of major milestones, project results and the release of reports and deliverables.
Then, Sigma Orionis highlighted the contribution of the project to the European Commission DG CONNECT ICT2013 representing Europe’s most visible forum for ICT research and innovation taking place in Vilnius, Lithuania in November 2013 and welcoming more than 5000 participants. As the project will participate and organise a networking session and will hold an exhibition booth in collaboration with other e-Infrastructure projects, partners’ inputs will be requested to contribute to sharing project content, to draft project presentations and to design promotional posters.
Quentin Groom presented ORCID, a registry for author identification. He will share the presentation with partners.
|BGBM, Plazi, RBGK and Sigma||Ensuring workshop proceedings (pictures, questionnaire, presentation and reports) are uploaded on wiki and shared in pro-iBiosphere dissemination channels (social media, website, wiki)||Achieved|
|BGBM, Plazi, RBGK and Sigma||To review and provide short articles by the contributors of the October workshops either to Naturalis or Pensoft for publication (Newsletter) on the website||Achieved|
|Sabrina Eckert||To send Evaluation Questionnaire of October event to the participants||Achieved, 15th October 2013|
|Eva Kralt||To provide Naturalis and Kew a compilation of the input on cost model provided by various participants and partners||Achieved|
|Consortium||To review the content of Year one Periodic report (PDF) sent on 5th October and make necessary changes on EU-xpert.||Achieved|
|Finance team||To complete EU_Fin and Form C||Achieved|
|Naturalis||To submit Scientific report and Financial report||Achieved|
|Anton Güntsch||To update the consortium regarding the comments of ISTC members of the declaration draft sent on the 14th of October 2013||November 2013|
|Sigma||To circulate the PowerPoint template of 19 November 2013 review meeting to the Task leaders||Achieved|
|Quentin Groom||To confirm the time and venue for a preparatory meeting at NBGB (18th November), Belgium prior to the review meeting held on November 19, 2013 and inform the task leaders of the details||Achieved|
|Task Leaders||First Periodic Review meeting in Brussels||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|
|Anton Güntsch||To involve EU-BON: Biodiversity Catalogue||By December 2013|
|Donat Agosti||To prepare a comparison of the different methods of pilot 1 used to mark-up||By 31st December 2013|
|Donat Agosti||To deliver, at least, one pilot on CharaParser on the report D4.2||By 31st December 2013|
|Lyubomir Penev, Taskleaders||To include the vision of RDF: an interoperability solution as a compliment in the reports of WP4||31 December 2013|
|Sigma, Naturalis||To find out the possibility to publish presentation on Slide Share and announce the guidelines to the consortium||Achieved, partners were encouraged to publish their presentations on Slide share|
|RBGK||To circulate the draft of T6.4 in order to gather sufficient information of the consortium (e.g. to identify the difficulties and what pro-iBiosphere is missing, list possible recommendations, capture the idea, provide instant analysis (by putting the various matrices into perspectives) and etc.)||Ongoing till the deliverable dates|
|BGBM||To inform the consortium of the coming demo of CDM||Achieved|
|Consortium||To contribute at least two items (articles and/or reports) and to report it to Sigma (fill in information on wiki and upload PPT presentations)||Achieved|
|Consortium||To suggest possible candidates to MfN for the next meeting at MfN, in Berlin||By December 2013|
|Consortium||To note that the next consortium 5th meeting will be held at MfN, Berlin||13th February 2014|
|Gregor Hagedorn||To circulate GBIF’s outlook document among the consortium. The full report can be downloaded here. There is also a brief 6 slide presentation.||Achieved, 14 October 2013|
|Sigma|| Workshop 4: Towards sustainability towards service (10th October 2013)
1) Send pictures of each group to the group rapporteur
|Sigma, RBGK|| Work-plan on Business Models:
1) Finalize the list of services at partners’ levels (put it on the wiki)
|For the next four months (till End of January 2014)|
|RBGK||To confirm if MS8 (Follow-up (small) meetings on selected topics with relevant stakeholders) is required||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|
|RBGK||To update MS23 meeting in Feb. with MfN and add the input on Wiki||December 2013|
|BGBM||To communicate to the consortium on the exact budget that could be transferred to support the finance situations of other partners||Achieved|