MPDL visionpaper

MPDL This page serves for collecting individual comments and ideas on the MPDL vision.

Your comments might be focused on the current vision paper v1_06 (see section 2), or you might want to share your general ideas on the MPDL. The access to the page is restricted to MPDL staff.

General comments to the MPDL vision paper
--Ulla 14:14, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Is it a "Vision" or a "concept" or a "statut" of MPDL?
 * => respective aims, target groups, levels of granularity are mixed in one document
 * Mix of strategy, offered services/Dienstleistungen for institutes, approaches/methodologies, current status/shortcomings and stakeholders/actors
 * Lack of long-term strategic aims/motivation of MPDL
 * Relevance of Stabstellen missing? (interoperability, open access)
 * Too much focus on status quo, planning, operative tasks for current projects
 * Lack of aims regarding MPDL-internal setup / culture/ policies
 * "professional self-conception" of MPDL staff? What is the balance/link between research and service? What is understanding of the different departments/Stabstellen, their respective profile and the individual/organisational cooperation possibilities?

MPDL Visionpaper v1_06 commented
Original text is marked in italic.

You might start your comment with colons to indent the remark, i.e. "::" to comment a comment. Do not forget to sign your input ;-)

Foreword
''This document is intended to present some elements of a vision for the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) as it stands now and should stand in the coming years as core component  of the Max Planck Society and its institutes. As such, it is a working document, which will benefit from discussions with various parties, and in particular the sInfo LA. A more finalized version should be seen as ultimately replacing the initial MPDL concept .''


 * Concept and vision should not be mixed to my opinion...
 * Vision: short, concise, long-term heading aims, to raise discussions, vivid...
 * Concept: much more operative, status and aims, details of internal policies, boundaries with other MPG committes...
 * --Ulla 14:17, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Scope
''The MPDL provides services to help the MPS researchers manage their scientific information workflow. Such services comprise the provision of actual content and technical solutions, but also by acting as a centre of competence and community facilitator in scientific information management. Importantly as well, the MPDL is in charge of the strategic issues related to the wide dissemination of research results towards the scientific community, and in particular in contributing to the design and implementation of the MPS Open Access policy.''


 * Missing is the relevance of the Stabstellen and the more long-term headed approach of designing activities. We are not only addressing “burning needs”, but we are shaping an infrastructure for integrated information management in a research organisation. --Ulla 14:19, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Actors
''Various actors in the MPS and surrounding academic environment are direct interlocutors of the MPDL, namely:
 * Institutes, researchers – MPDL activities should be first and foremost targeted at answering concrete needs of institutes (and hence researchers) to have the proper means to access, meliorate, and disseminate scientific information [see section bottom-up approach]


 * Libraries and librarians – Libraries have always been the place where scientific information was provided to researchers. The MPDL should articulate its activities in such a way that librarians can act as the main contact points to identify or deploy services to the institutes [see section libraries]


 * IT groups – Local solutions are usually initiated within the various IT groups of the institutes, which as a whole form a high level pool of competence for the MPS. The MPDL should act in complement to these activities and contribute to their wider dissemination [see section decentralized activities]


 * IVS units in Stuttgart and Martinsried – These two groups have a highly recognized competence targeted at the CPT and BM institutes. The MPDL should not cover the corresponding field of activities but, whenever it is possible, work synergistically with them


 * GWDG – The GWDG should be seen as the place where the technical deployment of operational services should take place both from the point of view of computing capacities or actual information storage


 * MPS management – Any strategic issue related to scientific information within the MPS should involve the MPDL in order to provide coherent answers to such various themes as the archival policy of MPS research results, our relations to the publishing environment or the evolution of libraries within institutes. In this respect, the MPDL and Präsidium/GV should maintain systematic relationship to ensure a good communication workflow and productive decision process


 * External partners – Most services that the MPDL will be deploying may be associated to similar endeavours by other similar entities or consortia at national or international level. It is thus essential to identify strategic partnerships that will provide us with additional competence or services, capacities to conduct joint activities but also to ensure long-term sustainability of our developments. Still, such collaborations should also be established under the condition that the MPS preserves its own expertise, development capacity and independence.


 * ...hm..the listed actors are a mix of people/committees/organisational units/players, which all have different role/position in the context of MPDL set-up and MPLD successful operation...it's a mix of "actors" and "stakeholders" and "clients"...the MPDL staff itself is missing. GWDG => why is gwdg mentioned, but not the Rechenzentren? Isn’t the decision for operating services rather bound to the type/needs of a specific service or project? --Ulla 14:26, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Activities
''The activities of the MPDL can be outlined along the following lines:


 * Content provision: the MPDL is in charge of negotiating and providing access to digital content to the institutes. The selection of such content should be made in strong collaborations with the institutes (mainly through their libraries)

 
 * ''Technological development: the MPDL should focus on providing technological platforms and tools as a complement to what is being locally implemented in the institutes. This may take the form of generic components and specific solutions for institutes which would not have the capacity to develop or maintain these by themselves
 * ''Expertise provision: beyond the two preceding core activities, it is important to act as an interlocutor towards institutes, in order to advise about the best standards, practices and technological state of the art and make sure that each new project related to digital information is at least aware of what has been done elsewhere in the MPS
 * Strategic planning: the MPDL should be part of the various decision processes within the MPS, whenever they comprise aspects related to scientific information management. This will ensure both a coherence of the decisions and a memory of the underlying rationales of the decision taking process


 * imho, MPDL should not only be involved in decision processes but drive decision processes regarding positioning the MPG with regard to digital environment for research organisations. MPDL is also kind of research project itself: how to optimally organise/structure a unit like this? Might get in conflict with institutes concrete needs => concrete needs of institutes might not always go hand in hand with more long-term based strategic decisions of MPDL. (see open access deposit mandate). Are the concrete needs of researchers the only driving force for activities? A need is articulated when it is already urgent…fire on the roof, needs immediate action. But we are also doing more long-term focused work, strategic work, which will not always be visible immediately as benefit to institutes. --Ulla 14:39, 5 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Networking: the MPDL should contribute in grouping together scientists, institutes or other stakeholders (libraries, IVS groups, GV) that have similar (or complementary) needs and activities in the MPS.


 * not only MPG- internal (needed for introducing/designing services), but also and very importantly externally: to not get "betriebsblind", to submit ourselves to continuous monitoring with regard to state of the art, to identify new/latent services, to include expertise from outside.--Ulla 14:41, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

''Still, the MPDL should not be in charge of the curational activities related to the creation (digitization) or management (metadata) of data. This should be kept at institute level, even if the MPDL may provide support to the planning and setting up of such activities. In the case of specific situations like the closure of an institute, a centralized solution, probably involving the MP Archives, should be addressed.''


 * Instead of formulating what we do not deliver, we might have to add another activity field, describing the kind of support for services we are offering: support/train the MPS staff to properly use the services and/or manage/curate their data and create local expertise in digital information domain. Interferes with paragraph “expertise provision”, but for sure, we will have to train/support our users in using our services (already done so…eDoc, vLib, open access) --Ulla 14:41, 5 September 2007 (CEST)


 * I am not sure where to find the ePublishing activities covered here. albeit the technological development, it's content provision i guess, but it's not targeted to MPI institutes only (though it's of course a service FOR institutes). Christina 15:58, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Summary
''The complexity of the MPDL environment, both from the point of view of actors and potential activities requires a high pragmatism for the choice of actions to be taken. Those actions should always be led by the urge to provide services that are identified, specified and designed in close collaboration with researchers. As such, the MPDL should be positioned with the MPS as a direct interlocutor to institutes.'' This can only be achieved under three complementary conditions:


 * Sustainability: the MPDL should be seen internally (by its members) and externally (by the institutes) as a long-standing structure for the MPS, with the capacity to accumulate competence and experience beyond the achievement of specific projects


 * MPG-externals should be added... the “business model” of MPDL has to be convincing also to externals outside MPG, to attract serious and long-term partnerships--Ulla 14:45, 5 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Autonomy: setting up a technical infrastructure while offering immediate services to some institutes requires having the capacity of making choices corresponding to the optimisation of available capacity at a given time. Not all solicitations should necessarily be satisfied


 * Degree/amount of infrastructure/services is not only a matter of capacity, but also a matter of relevance ranking (see long-term aims, see strategical directions of MPDL). The statute of the MPDL should take care for sufficient autonomy in taking decisions and executing decisions relevant to building up the MPDL as a team and organisation (staff, locations, travelling etc). New or sofar unknown approaches should not be hindered by administrative barriers (cf “MPDL as innovative project itself”) --Ulla 14:45, 5 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Managerial involvement: the MPS management should explicitly support institutes when they express the need to work in collaboration with the MPDL. Beyond what the MPDL can provide, new eScience activities will always require some editorial or technical effort on the side of the institutes, which should be taken care of, at least in an on-setting phase, by the MPS.


 * It should be more explicit here ,what is meant by managerial (president? sInfo? Directors? Sections?) depending on each project, the kind of support might differ (promotion, individual expertise, human/computational resources, etc.) --Ulla 14:45, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

A bottom-up approach to the deployment of editorial and technical services
The main strategic issue for the MPDL will be to orient its provision of services according to concrete needs of the institutes, while ensuring that the corresponding activities form a coherent whole and can be framed within its actual working capacity and with the underlying objective of gaining comprehensive competence in the long run.


 * The argument regarding capacity might be valid( unfortunately) only in the first year,... it is rather the long-term aim of the MPDL and the focus on competence building, which might limit or delay the addressing of concrete needs. We have to communicate clearly (of course might change/be adapted over time) which fields we want to tackle, to be able to recruit projects with a clear focus, and to be able to manage the expectations of the institutes. The argument “sorry no capacity” might be valid in the first year, but even having limited capacity, we have to have arguments, why we prioritize the existing tasks in a specific manner. --Ulla 14:51, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

We suggest adopting a step-by-step strategy according to the following lines:


 * Dealing with the various scientific communities: institutes in the various sections do not have the same background, awareness and possibilities to benefit from the services of the MPDL. This is particularly true in the domain of research data and/or primary resources. Generic services (journal licences, publication archive) should thus be complemented with highly dedicated solutions which will be developed first in the context of the GSH section to progressively cover needs from a wide variety of communities


 * We might get difficulties to outline the generic, overall knowledge we gain when tackling GSHS solutions. . (e.g. how to convince biomedicine scientists that FACES contributes in building domain knowledge on image scaling, having in mind the sophisticated technology they use already for years?) Maybe we have to focus on the competence gain in “processes” as well, to convince other sections that we can do something for them as well, even with very different technologies and domain knowledge involved. --Ulla 14:51, 5 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Dealing with various needs: needs from the institutes range from basic support for the library system to the complex management of huge assets of digital information. The MPDL should first focus on needs for which it can really be an added value to the institute rather then trying to compete with, or even duplicate, competence centres that already exist in the MPS


 * Should contain the context of different target groups. It goes without saying, that any service we offer, should be added value to the already existing infrastructure of an institute. Still, the added value might be relevant for a specific target group only. This is visible already in generic services such as publication archive or library systems… It might be sensible to differentiate between needs from scientific community directly and needs from local information services, such as library or local IT. --Ulla 14:51, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

''
 * ''Clustering needs and services: the institutes, with the underlying support of the MPS, should be working synergistically (either from a geographical or thematic point of view) to identify, design and deploy solutions in collaboration with the MPDL.


 * ... can be understood as operative conclusion from the 2 points above: clustering target groups and their needs, clustering domain-specific needs and improving the exchange between institutes respectively their staff along their domain- or operational-specific needs (cf also “MPDL as facilitator between institutes”)--Ulla 14:51, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

This obviously impacts on short-term activities and the following sections exemplify such consequences.

Strategy for developing and deploying a MPS publication archive
The main strategy with regards to offering services concerning publication archives within the MPS can be summarized as follows:


 * Keep maintaining eDoc as a practical tool, a) for institutes which have an established workflow and no additional need in this respect, and b) to keep it as an instrument for the Jahrbuch
 * Keep local publication archives when they exist and fulfil the needs of the corresponding institutes. The MPDL should just progressively provide support for a good interface to the upload of data on PubMan
 * Step by step deployment of PubMan through Early Adopters and Cluster (see below), focusing on institutes with urgent needs in benefiting from an environment for publication management, while initially focusing on simple yet essential features (e.g. researcher’s web page).

''For a smooth and successful deployment of PubMan an intense cooperation with the institutes is essential. The idea is to start the deployment step-by-step, starting with a small group of so called “Early Adopters”. Institutes that act as Early Adopters, support the eSciDoc team in specifying functional requirements, workflows and graphical user interfaces. They are involved in the tests of continuous PubMan releases and assist in developing elaborated migration concepts. Furthermore they act as first candidates for the data migration from eDoc to eSciDoc-PubMan. Early Adopters can therefore actively participate in the further development of the PubMan service and can influence the successful deployment of the new service in the Max Planck Institutes.''

''The activities of Early Adopters can also be bundled in local or discipline-specific clusters. This means that nearby-institutes or discipline-related institutes coordinate their collaboration efforts to enable a more effective organization of the Early Adopter-related work. Such uptakes should be globally encouraged and supported by the MPS. As an example, the three Max Planck Institutes in Golm (MPI of Colloids and Interfaces, MPI for Gravitational Physics (AEI), and MPI for Molecular Plant Physiology) have agreed to act as a cluster on the basis of the AEI becoming a PubMan Early Adopter.''


 * I’m lacking here a clear positioning from MPDL side regarding “publication archive”. The three points do not reflect any strategy, but concrete steps. There should be a written statement what vision the MPDL follows regarding pubarchive. Having in mind the history of eDoc, we should avoid the mixed expectations regarding an archive (local pubdata management, open access flagship, Schaufenster of MPG output, MPG yearbook of press). Nailing down our vision might help to shape the concrete steps mentioned later. MPDL vision of publication archive => closely related to open access =>how to achieve it? What is role of PubMan? What is role of local archives? What is role of escidoc framework for local archives?… Ad local publication archives: they have no needs currently, only when the topic of one central archive rises, they have to deal with new requirements. The mentioning of Early adopters and Cluster ideas in this context would be too detailed/operative for me in this paragraph--Ulla 14:56, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Strategy for developing and deploying research data solutions on the basis of eSciDoc/SWB
''Historically, the Scholarly Workbench (SWB) component of the eSciDoc project has been conceived in the light of the seminal achievements of the ECHO project lead by the MPIWG. This has resulted in the identification of a whole range of functionalities that could cover most if not all needs in the domain of humanities computing (eHumanities). Still the actual development process imposes a pragmatic approach as to implementing concrete solutions based on the features that are being progressively implemented.''

''As a result, the MPDL puts as a priority to be able to demonstrate the capacities of the eSciDoc/SWB infrastructure to be used as a basis for specific solutions, directly initiated by institutes. Such solutions either correspond to simple types of data (image corpora such as the FACES database at MPIB; textual corpora with full text transcriptions at MPIeR; language descriptions at MPI EVA) or the integration of existing tools on the platform (Lexus from MPIPL).''

The next stage for SWB is twofold:

''1. Identify a possible extension of developed prototypes to cover more collections in the humanities and social section. This should lead to the definition of a migration plan for the humanities integrating, in the long run, the ECHO collections''

2. Explore the capacity of eSciDoc technological components to be used to fulfil further needs in other scientific fields, using the experience gained in GSHS institutes in shaping such solutions.


 * Lacking: short concise description of what “scholarly workbench” is meant by. The paragraph is still driven by “legacy trauma”, justifying the current status quo. Separation from concrete operative tasks and strategic direction of MPDL for solutions/infrastructure for dealing with primary data (not only GSHS data).--Ulla 14:58, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

MPDL as a facilitator between institutes
''The MPDL should contribute to facilitate the communication of experience and technologies between institutes. Among the possible ways to act in this direction, we identify the following priorities:''


 * eScience seminar : the aim is to organize a yearly series of seminars related to focused topics (registries, archiving, data types) in the context of digital information management.


 * Participation concept: the eSciDoc platform will be offered to institute as a possible basis for their own developments, thus making them benefit from available features (user identification, document bundling, affiliation management, etc.). This would allow institutes (through their IT groups in particular) to really focus on their own scientific priorities, while establishing a good communication channel with the MPDL


 * Generalizing solutions: the MPDL is the ideal place to link further institutes to existing solutions, either when developed within institutes (reusing such tools as Elan from MPIWG), or jointly developed with MPDL (taking up the WALS project to provide a wider platform for language descriptions, or extending our FACES solution to deal with other image collections (AEI, MPI BIOCHEM, MPIKG ))


 * Exchange of services: being in contact with both needs and existing activities, the MPDL can act as a go-between between institutes without being involved properly in the corresponding activities (e.g. MPIPL offering digitization services to MPIB-Berlin).


 * To my understanding, this and the next two paragraphs try to address one big issue of the MPDL: bring together existing expertise and competence (know-how and knowledge) within the MPG or from outside, and jump in, when we realize an new field of interest for the MPDL or a field, which cannot be tackled by local activities. Again, very concrete current operational activities are mixed with long-term visions: Escience seminars might be just the start of any kind of other lecture series in the MPG for discussing topics relevant to more than one institute.


 * Mentioning the participation concept in this context might be misleading: was sofar mainly driven by eScidoc needs (i.e. need for input from local experts, need for concrete manpower from institutes for escidoc). Although the participation concept will be revised and extendend in the next weeks to tackle a more broader MPDL context (identify incentives for institues in participating in MPDL activities to shape the services most early possible), the participation concept should not be mixed with the deployment of escidoc technologies as open source, where the role of FIZ is also not be forgotten.  Although related, these are 2 different things, and have different strategic value for the MPDL.--Ulla 15:02, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

MPDL as a reference center of expertise
''As stated in the introduction, an essential aspect of the MPDL missions should be to provide expertise to the institutes in any domain where it has gained experience. This will be implemented by means of activities launched within the MPDL CoLaboratory (MPDL CoLab) initiative. The idea of the MPDL CoLab is to provide a platform for community building and knowledge exchange across (sub)projects and organisations. The aim is to improve the exchange of explicit knowledge and to make tacit and individual know-how explicit. The MPDL CoLab supports community-building processes and connects people with similar fields of interest and goals within the MPS as well as external organisations.''

An essential aspect of the MPDL CoLab will be to provide information about existing standards and best practices in the domain of supporting scientific life cycles in order to ensure long-term compatibility between local and centralized initiatives within the MPS.


 * Although described very ambitiously in the concept paper, CoLab is still a mere platform and just one “tool” for the MPDL’s aim to act as a reference center. coLab is driven by individuals, in consequence by a community, but does not reflect any strategical direction the MPDL might want to take in its development. To fulfil the aims of “reference center of expertise”, MPDL has to start parallel activities and discussions, to identify its main strategical aims, maybe influenced by discussions going on in CoLab…but CoLab cannot substitute the profile the MPDL want to shape for its own, it is just complementary. --Ulla 15:03, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Decentralized activities
''The MPDL complements and supports local activities and takes up initiatives coming from the institutes. The strategy is to provide central support, technical infrastructure and expert knowledge, in complement to the local investment by the institutes themselves. In the preceding sections a few examples have already been provided that have been initiated, for instance in the context of the eSciDoc project. In some case, the level of expertise of the institute is so high that it may not even make sense for the MPDL to be involved in any specific development. Still, in the long run, such decentralized activities could lead to the identification of real competence centres (or MPDL subsidiaries) working in close collaboration with the MPDL core group.''

At least, the MPDL will set up a knowledge database where those decentralized activities and expertise information could be stored and made available throughout the MPS and elsewhere (cf. MPDL CoLab).


 * see comment above...neither is CoLab meant to become a “client-customer relationship database”, with the intention to give structured, complete overview on any activities going on in the institutes or level of expertise available in the institutes. In that case, it would have to be managed centrally and be operated very differently as it is approached now. The impact of CoLab on the strategical and organisational evolvement of the MPDL is still to be defined. --Ulla 15:04, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Libraries (librarians!) as local ambassadors
''The MPDL can only achieve its various activities if it has long-standing and knowledgeable interlocutors at its side. Librarians have all capabilities to act as such interlocutors within the institutes. They work in a strategic position in contact with researchers, and their work is crucial in many respects. From the point of view of a global evolution of researchers’ activities in relation to digital information, librarians already play or should play the following roles:''
 *  "center of gravity" of scientific information by identifying researchers’ needs and report about new information sources or services;
 * digital curators of all kinds of data being created or maintained in the institutes;
 * interfaces between scientists and the MPDL;
 * contact points for the definition of new projects and the deployment of services;
 * local mirrors of central MPS and MPDL activities;
 * the term local mirrors is apparently percieved within the BM-Section as 'being not allowed to have their own opinion, but to have to present commentless whatever they get from the MPDL'. I think local mediator between central MPS (and MPDL) activities and their institutes would be a more appropriate expression. --Andreas Gros 13:05, 7 November 2007 (CET)

''As a typical example, the "Grundversorgung" as such would never work without the buy-in and consensus of the institutes and the libraries. Most of the information provision services (e.g. EZB, MPG Journal Index, vLib/SFX, Aleph, Retrieval Systems) were and still are based on intense collaboration. New approaches to solutions or service improvements are based on maximum transparency and open discussion. In the same way, conception and development of eSciDoc-PubMan rely on a close coordination with the pilot group, within which librarians play a central role by bringing in their experience in the local usages of publication archives''.
 * coordinators of new services initiated by local groups of libraries.

To let librarians entirely fulfill the role of local ambassadors, they have to be backed in two respects:
 * a strong support at institute and MPS level towards libraries is essential to absorb the extra work resulting from their role as local contacts for the MPDL activities;
 * a common understanding and strategy towards the evolution of libraries, and librarians’ work profile, within the MPS is needed, particularly towards the issue of "library as a place" considering present and future digitalization activities.


 * "library as a place" not clear... do not understand the context here --Ulla 16:10, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I assume that the "library as place" refers to the discussion on the future of libraries in an digital age, i.e. are they still required as physical place or will they mainly serve their user's needs in an electronic form. See Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space. CLIR publication (pdf) --Inga 23:58, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

''To achieve a common understanding of the evolution of libraries the MPDL has been already active. The AG Bibliothek will be established to extend the discussion of status and role of libraries in new institute configurations to a wider context and to involve the libraries as one of the relevant actors.''


 * Was the AG Bibliothek mentioned before? Who will establish the AG, who is asked to participate? --Inga 20:31, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I also would like to stress the importance of an continuous learning effort & experience transfer between MPDL and libraries - which would be a necessary precondition to get local ambassadors --Inga 20:31, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Networking MPDL
''Most of the services that are or will be developed within the MPDL are not specific to the Max Planck Society but indeed correspond to fulfilling needs that are shared by other research communities or institutions. In this respect, it is essential that the MPDL establishes links with other active communities in the domain of digital scientific information. From the very beginning, and even before it actually existed with the strong collaborations established by Ref. VIIb and ZIM, the MPDL has been active in the relevant networks and communities and could aggregate with the best partners for its core activities.''


 * As mentioned in the paper, the following paragraphs give a picture of the current status quo, rather than depicting a vision of MPDL as networked organisation. The list of current/planned activities does not provide insight into the underlying focus ( why to network with whom in which areas). Maybe it might be more productive to depict a picture, in which areas the MPDL wants to focus/strengthen its networking activities and with which driving motivation behind- strategical, operational motivations? (MPS strategy, gather/exchange expertise, exchange staff, shape infrastructure, cooperate on standards, orientation in an unknown field, include external expertise etc.)
 * It might be valuable to also provide some insight, into how “networking” should take place at the different levels of the organisation, or, how networking will be supported by the organisational structure of the MPDL…e.g. by promoting MPDL within MPS and external, by exchange of staff for certain time, by using coLab, by organising events/unconferences, by publishing research papers/attending conferences. To my opinion, it might be worth to try to depict “networking” as essential part of MPDL staff’s own professional selbstverständnis, to avoid misinterpretation of someone doing the “networking job” of MPDL (aka “foreign minister”;-) --Ulla 16:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

''The following section is a first attempt at providing a picture of the MPDL networking environment in relation to its various activities. It has to be completed and better organized to offer a strategic view on our projects and collaborations.''

Information provision
Strategic networks and partners are essential to share forces, especially in the field of information provision.
 * AG Konsortien (GASCO) – As the coalition of German consortia (universities and research organisations), this group is an important resource as to discussing and assessing license models and joint approaches towards publishers and their information policies or product developments.
 * Allianz – The Allianz organisations have established various routines also on the library level in order to discuss issues of common interest. More recently they have taken a specific concentration on national licences to find a joint policy about this issue also regarding the prioritization which project should be implemented first.
 * DFG – The DFG is taking the lead regarding national licences and is funding national licences for large databases and periodical archives. The MPDL is closely interacting with the DFG to ensure good choices made within university libraries and choices made by research institutions.
 * International Library Advisory Boards – Over the years, the MPDL has been invited to serve on several international Library Advisory Boards (currently Nature Publishing Group, Blackwell, Wiley), which are international high-level meetings with strong strategic implications and the potential of contributing to the definition of new service levels relevant for the Max Planck Society at large.

Technical development
 A close cooperation and exchange with relevant networks and partners enable complementary developments.
 * eSciDoc – eSciDoc as a shared project of the MPS and the FIZ Karlsruhe, funded by the BMBF, is a strategic project for the MPS as it will be the basis for future digital resource management activities. 
 * DINI – The Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) is – among others - very active in the domain of international standards, ePublishing and issues related to publication archives. In the latter aspect, DINI also acts as the national network for DRIVER related projects. The MPDL is planning to become a DINI member and is involved in the activities of the “ePublishing Working Group”. Furthermore the MPDL is working collaboratively with DINI partners on national strategies concerning the deployment of publication archives.
 * CARPET (Community for Academic Reviewing, Publishing and Editorial Technology) -Three collaborating partners, HU Berlin, SUB Göttingen and MPDL are currently preparing a proposal for an information platform about electronic publishing - "CARPET". It will give a structured, evaluative overview on available epublishing tools and services, and guide users to the appropriate technical solutions for their respective usage scenario. It will also provide recommendations on best practices and applicable standards (regarding document models, publication workflows or architectures of publishing systems). The platform shall become a virtual competence center for electronic publishing, a forum for users and developers alike.
 * Publishers – Both the MPDL and the IVS units are seen with increasing frequency by publishers as a potential development partner. The MPS was a pilot partner for ISI Thomson’s Web Citation Index and is currently a Development Partner for Elsevier ScienceDirect. So the perspective and needs of the Max Planck Society can be addressed at an early stage to the development and specific configuration of new systems and services.

Expertise acquisition and sharing
With similar scientific communities the MPDL have a joint interest in working on eScience issues:
 * IVS Stuttgart – The MPDL is hosting an Open Access review study, done by the IVS group in Stuttgart and the ETH Zürich;
 * BBAW – The MPDL supports the BBAW in building the Deutsches Textarchiv (DTA). The MPDL is providing support for the digitalization of documents between the 17th and the 19th century and both parties explore how much eSciDoc can be used as the underlying architecture;
 * SUB Göttingen – The SUB Göttingen and the MPDL signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” at the GES 2007 in Baden-Baden to extend their close relation and to cooperate in the domain of standards, digital infrastructure for the humanities and cultural sciences and other related issues.

''In this domain, we consider that a specific emphasis should be put on acquiring a strong expertise about available standards. An intense networking activity will be pursued in the domains of metadata (cf. complementary document on metadata and interoperability) and basic document formats, with a strong emphasis on textual data.''

Policy development
The MPDL is active in the relevant networks and communities for a joint defense of the scientists’ interest regarding Open Access
 * SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics) – Based on a CERN initiative, there is a very interesting and challenging concept on the table, according to which more or less the entire publication output in the domain of high energy physics will be turned into open access publications starting with the publication year 2008. The MPDL was a member of the so-called SCOAP3 working party that drafted the final report (finished and distributed in April 2007). The idea is to identify the existing journals in the field and to turn them into OA gold publications by raising enough money as to be able to pay the publication costs on a global scale. The MPDL will continue to be involved in this flagship endeavor and contribute to its organization, funding and ultimate success;
 * ''Allianz – The MPDL is part of the Allianz working group on Open Access. This forum of the Open Access representatives of the Allianz organisations was responsible for the Wissenschaftsmanagement special issue on Open Access last November and recently decided – on initiative of the MPDL – to establish a working group on Open Access to Research Data;
 * Informationsplattform open-access.net – The MPDL contributes to this important Open Access platform which groups together all relevant information and pointers related to the development of Open Access concepts. The strategic decision there is not to duplicate on our own web-pages some information that would have by far more outreach through the Open Access platform;''
 * Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission – The DUK very recently published an OA handbook with several contributions from MPS/MPDL staff members. It has issued a set of resolutions that have to be aligned with MPS policy on OA.


 * In my opinion the development of policies for long-term archiving is missing:
 * what has to be stored and for how long
 * which standard is mandatory for which content type
 * --Andreas Gros 13:47, 7 November 2007 (CET)

Scientific digital libraries in Europe
''There is a strong activity at present to build up a common understanding, policy and infrastructure in the domain of digital scientific information in Europe. In the recent months, we have had the opportunity to take a leading or just active role in a few initiatives, which contribute to re-enforcing both our working capacity and our institutional visibility. A few initiatives are mentioned below, with the objective to provide a more comprehensive picture in the next version of this document.''

''As a member of the High-Level expert group on digital libraries, and in the continuation of the EU February declaration, we have been in the position to discuss a proposal by some European publishers to carry out a study on the impact of embargoes on the publishing environment. Together with the DFG and several European academic institutions we have consulted, we are very reluctant to invest strongly in this direction and would favour putting together a proposal (eContent+) focusing on deposit mandates and their consequence on assessment and strategic planning within institutions.''

''DARIAH (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities) — Researchers in the humanities need a digital infrastructure to get access to the information and the knowledge that is embedded in digital content. The aim of the DARIAH project is to provide such an infrastructure and to facilitate long-term access to all European humanities and cultural heritage information. DARIAH will also be active in policy development and expertise sharing. In this respect DARIAH takes up a strategic position on an international/European level in the domain of digital libraries. In the DARIAH project important players like AHDS, DANS, CNRS, MPG/MPDL, and SUB Göttingen are joining their forces. ''

''The EC study on digital repositories "Towards a European e-Infrastructure for e-Science Digital Repositories" is being carried out by the UK Digital Archiving Consultancy Limited (DAC). The objective of the study is to provide the EC with an overview of the situation in Europe regarding e-Science digital repositories, to identify an e-infrastructure for these repositories, and set out key issues. The study should formulate policy recommendations for FP7 activities. The MPDL is participating in the 3 workshops.''

''The MPDL has also participated in a meeting of the "Working group of the Alliance for the permanent access to the records of science" in The Hague, organized by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek of the Netherlands. Aim of this WG is the formal foundation of an Alliance and the submission of an FP7 proposal concerning data preservation and permanent access this autumn.''

What we should achieve
''The various elements presented in this document should allow us to provide a first vision of what the MPDL could or should be within one year and five years. Even if just fragmented the following sections should be a basis for sharing a joint vision within the Max Planck Society of what we should try to achieve.''


 * Instead of focussing on concrete activities and their milestones / release planning, adding aims regarding fostering the organisational setting (one year from now) and first visible strategy, incl. lookback and reflexion phase (five years from now) would be good. Project/department related goals should be described in another context, with their respective milestones, work packages, criteria for success, boundary conditions, etc. Especially the five years perspective should not be driven by current projects/activities/lackings, but reflect first strategical thoughts of the MPDL’s direction.--Ulla 16:15, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I agree with Ulla that the MPDL vision paper should answer more superior issues like overall processes and project phases. But, the concrete activities are of high importance because these will constitute the perception of success/non-success of MPDL as organization unit. For further ideas check the Zielvereinbarungen GBV/VZG (pdf) --Inga 22:20, 11 November 2007 (CET)

One year from now
Within one year, the MPDL should have a firm settlement and staff and be able to report along the following lines:


 * Is now already past? Or still in future? --Inga 22:20, 11 November 2007 (CET)


 * be able to present tangible signs of synergetic activities across its various activities. A typical objective is to be able to provide one single access point for all its central services (e.g. vLib, eDoc and PubMan);
 * having PubMan be deployed within a first group of Early Adopters together with a stable plan for further deployment as well as necessary additional implementations;
 * have a complete concept and strategy for the deployment of eBooks in the MPS;
 * have a first portfolio of three SWB solutions that can be demonstrated as concrete applications of eSciDoc;
 * have a deposit mandate adopted within the MPS, together with the corresponding implementation guidelines;
 * have two exemplary Gold negotiations with publishers completed;
 * organize a first meeting of the MPDL scientific committee in conjunction with a prospective workshop on eScience within the MPS;
 * work out a concept paper proposing a stable institutional framework for the MPDL;
 * formulate an MPS statement to support institutes deploying new eScience projects in relation to the MPDL.


 * Examples I would expect in one year:
 * reliable communication channels into the institutes (directors, scientists, librarians) and visible, stable "points of contact" and reporting/information activities into the society.
 * improved, flexible MPDL- internal communication, cooperation and exchange framework and culture, (ad-hoc exchange, regular intra-/inter department meetings, individual/domain- driven cooperation vs. hierarchical/organisational driven cooperation…)
 * Improved shaping/profiling of services and expertise we are offering to MPS and/or others…goes hand in hand with MPDL press activities and promotion
 * Shaped/depicted/promoted "red line/roter Faden" within acquisition of new projects => Management of expectations-- Ulla 16:28, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Five years from now
''Instead of proposing a grand vision within five years, we could probably identify some major topics where the MPDL, but above all the MPS, should have a better picture by that time. The achievements of the following elements would probably show that establishing the MPDL has had a positive effect on the MPS environment:''
 * Strong Open Access policy associated to the implementation of the deposit mandate;
 * Complete replacement of eDoc and local publication archives by eSciDoc;
 * Concept for the management and archival of research data within the MPS, paving the way for an archival mandate of all data related to published research;
 * Have a complete portfolio of research data management solutions for all basic types of data (images, sound, videos, text and online databases);
 * Concept for the evolution of the library network within institutes, including a coordination scheme with the MPDL and reference mission and work-profiles for future librarians (in the direction of digital curatorship);
 * Concept for the co-evolution of the MPDL and the Archives of the Max Planck Society . In the future, the MPDL is likely to be more and more involved in the management of legacy digital information within institutes, which in a way would also be a natural extension of the mission of the Archives of the Max Planck Society. Defining a clear concept on this topic is obviously of a major importance for the MPS;
 * stable scientific and administrative structure for the MPDL, comprising an evolution plan made of a global organization allowing local centres of excellence within institutes to be related to a central MPDL office

''A typical example of such an evolution should be our capacity to be the interlocutor (usually in close collaboration with the MPIs and institutions like e.g. the GWDG) for infrastructural developments related to scientific information. A concrete example is that of long-term archiving of data and documents with invaluable content available within the MPS''. ''In conjunction to bitstream preservation (the technical aspect is supposed to be handled by the RZG and GWDG), we also need to identify ways of preserving supplementary data like documentations of research data (metadata), together with the corresponding schemas and semantics (registry). In order to access and re-use preserved and archived data other additional information is needed. Which tools or which systems were used to produce the data? Do they have to be saved in a sustainable way as well? Otherwise it could well be that certain data-formats could not be opened and read again (e.g. pdf or postscript files).''
 * Which data are invaluable? Rules need to be defined to answer this question.
 * Where are the invaluable data? A census is needed to register the type, content, format and amount of this data.
 * Are the people still available to describe the data they have produced some time ago?

As the data to be preserved are very heterogeneous among the various MPIs virtual groups of institutes should be formed to bring together those of similar demands and interests.

Here we mention as an example the seven MPIs working in the field of astronomy; all of them could take advantage of the activities currently undertaken under the auspices of the International Virtual Observatory Alliance (IVOA). ''The German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory project GAVO, initiated by the MPIs for extraterrestrial Physics (MPE) and for Astrophysics (MPA), is representing the German astronomy community. Aim of the 16 national VObs collaborating within the IVOA is the development of standards to ensure interoperability of their highly distributed data-centres containing very heterogeneous data-sets (in particular with respect to registries, metadata, protocols for accessing images, spectra, catalogues, numerical simulations, and related literature). The concept is designed in such a generic way that it can be adapted by other communities or for other purposes.''

Final thoughts on the evolution of the LA
The MPDL would strongly benefit from the existence of an MPS-internal committee that would act as a real representative of the MPS users with regards to eScience services and which would be active in two complementary domains:

1. Take up the debate for strategic issues related to the evolution of scientific information management within the Max Planck Society (Open Access, libraries, long-term archiving, clustered activities), in particular to enhance information-based research discoveries

2. Evaluate and decide on proposal applications made by institutes to deploy new activities in this domain, possibly in collaboration with the MPDL.