EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31 st 2012.

EPOS Status at M18:assessing the Preparatory Phase

Advisory Board MeetingRome, May 31st 2012

Proposed Meeting Agenda• 10:30-11:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks and

reporting procedure (M. Cocco)• 11:30-12:30 Questions and Discussion • 12:30-13:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation &

discussion)• 13:00:13:30 The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form &

procedure (presentation of the document & discussion)

13:30 Lunch

• 14:30-15:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents.

• 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion• 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

New Meeting Agenda• 10:30-11:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE

showing the EPOS contents.• 11:00-11:30 The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form &

procedure (presentation of the document & discussion)• 11:30-12:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks and

reporting procedure (M. Cocco)• 12:30-13:00 Questions and Discussion

13:00 Lunch

• 14:30-15:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion)

• 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion• 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

EPOS challenges

Geological and Surface Dynamics data

Other Geosciences data

Analytical and Experimental Laboratories

Geodetic data

Volcano Observations

Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures

ICT & e-RI Facilities

Satellite Information data

http://www.eudat.eu/

EPOS challenges

Geological and Surface Dynamics data

Other Geosciences dataAnalytical and Experimental Laboratories

Geodetic data

Volcano ObservationsSeismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures

ICT & e-RI FacilitiesSatellite Information data

EPOS is one of the most complex and ambitious projects of all ESFRI initiatives!

http://www.eudat.eu/

Why EPOS?• Integration of the existing national and trans-national RISs

• Interoperability and services to a broad community of users

• Open access to a multidisciplinary research infrastructure

• Progress in Science by providing prompt and continuous availability of high quality data and the means to process and interpret them

• Data infrastructures and novel core services, which will contribute to information, dissemination, education and training.

• Implementation plans, which require strategic investment in research infrastructures at national and international levels.

• Societal contributions: hazard assessment and risk mitigation

EPOS FrameworkM1-18

EPOS gov. structure

The EPOS PP governing structure • The Project Development Board (PDB)

• The Inter-Activity Preparatory Council (IAPC)

• Board of Governmental Representatives (BGR)

• The Project Management Office

• The Advisory Board

• The Data Providers’ and Users’ Commission

• The ICT Board

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

How EPOS works?

WP5 Strategic work

WP2 Legal Work

WP3 Governance

WP4 Financial Work

e-science implemen

tation

EPOS e-IR prototype

Core Services design

Data Centers

WP7 EPOS ARCHITECTURE WP8 OUTREACH & DISSEMINATION

EPOS RoadmapIdentification

• Data providers & users• Legal & Governance models• Costs & sustainability

Design• Data infrastructures• Core Services & architecture• Governance & Legal structure

Validation & Testing

• Assess operability & prototype (services)• Elaborate a funding model• Draft Statute

Delivery• Operational Prototype of

Core Services • Implementation plan for

construction

May 2012

July 2013

May 2014

Technical & financial requirements

Promotion & participation

The EPOS PP objectives1. Management of the preparatory phase

2. Legal & Governance models

3. Financial work

4. Technical work

5. Strategic work

6. Outreach & Dissemination

Preliminary Achievements• We have involved the data providers and identified and partially involved

users (our stakeholders categories I &II).

• We have completed the first inventory of the RIs we are going to integrate in EPOS. The revision and the update of the database are in progress (> 230 questionnaires collected so far)

• Most of monitoring infrastructures and existing facilities are operational. Data are already available and data centres exist. Several web-services are operational (see ORFEUS/EIDA for seismology).

• We are approaching Governmental stakeholders, funding agencies and industry (categories III & IV).

• We are working to design of the EPOS Core Services.

• We are promoting a community building by structuring our community.

Preliminary Achievements• We have officially involved EuroGeoSurveys in WG3.

• We have involved national space agencies and ESA in WG8.

• EPOS has established effective links to several European Projects (NERA, REAKT, SHARE, QUEST, TopoMod, TopoEurope, MEMoVolc, ....).

• EPOS is a GEO participating institution and it is directly involved in the Supersites Task in the GEO Work Plan.

• EPOS is involved in a bilateral transatlantic cooperation with US National Science Foundation and in particular with EarthScope.

• EPOS is collaborating with other Global initiatives for Data Infrastructures and for hazard and risk (FDSN in GEO, GEM, ....).

• EPOS is participating to EC e-science projects (EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS).

• EPOS supported the VERCE EC project on data massive applications.

2. Legal & Governance models

WP2, WP3

Summing up WP2/3/4

WP Objectives Outcome

Legal work (WP 2) - Propose the most suitable legal option, tailored to the EPOS science plan & suitable for EPOS partners

- Regulate & frame the relations between the EPOS structure and the national networks, RIs and

Legal recommandations

Governance (WP 3) - Propose a structure that is workable while reflecting the complexity of EPOS

- Guarantee that the different interests (national, disciplinary…) are represented and balanced

- Ensure that this structure not only deals with the daily management but also enforces a scientific vision

Governance structure

Financial Plan (WP 4) - Estimate of the global budget of the national networks in order to demonstrate the added value of EPOS Core Services

- Budget the costs and elaborate a funding model for the Core Services

Financial Business Plan

#2 Legal & Governance modelsSteps for setting up a pan-European infrastructure: achieved

• Identification of the scientific and technical needs

• Mapping of the stakeholders and existing national infrastructures

• Choice of the most appropriate legal structure

• Tailoring the governance to the scientific and technical needs

Choice of a legal structure

Selection criteria for a legal structure

ERIC legal structure• The European Research Infrastructure Consortium results from the

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC).

• Recognition as an International body to some regards (VAT, procurement, …). Another advantage of the ERIC is the flexibility of its management, as the regulation only requires that the statutes provide:- An assembly of members having full decision-making powers including the budget- A director or a board of directors as the executive body and legal representative of the ERIC

• To set-up an ERIC, there has to be at least three EU Member States

ERIC membership

• Only States (EU Member States, Associate States, Third countries) can be members of an ERIC (i.e. governmental level)

• Research organizations cannot be members• The work of the EPOS RI will be undertaken by

research organizations, and may include organizations from non-ERIC-member States

• Core Services can be organised inside or outside the ERIC according to budgetary and practical considerations

External advisory board(external experts in science, finance &

managem

ent)

General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERIC

Executive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director,

Adm. Assistant

Coordination CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director,

Chair and rep from SEB & TEB

Simple EPOS ERIC model with external Core Services

Technical Expertise Board

• High level engineers

Scientific Expertise Board• Thematic experts• National consortia

representatives

Core Services• Data description & QC• Data interoperability• …

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data Centers

Discussion

Cont

ract

for

serv

ices

Provides data & services

recommends

coordination

EPOS-ERIC: A more practical model

Intermediate objective n°

Date Action or document Acting Objective

1 Sept 2012 (M23)

Draft EPOS Design Report (short Science plan, legal and governance scheme, data policy, business plan, socio-economic impacts)

WP2,3,4,6 Submit EPOS project to governmental representatives, raise awareness and achieve wide recognition

2 Nov 2012 (M25)

1st meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC)

WP2,4 (convener)

Decide on decision-making process for establishing EPOS-ERIC and possibly an Interim Governing Board (gov. representatives)

3 Oct 2012-Feb 2013 (M24-30)

Application of ERIC hosting country

Ministry of that country

Decision on the EPOS-ERIC seat

4 April 2013(M30)

Draft EPOS-ERIC statutes

WP2 Feedback from all countries

5 April 2013 (M30)

Revised EPOS Design Report

WP2,3,4,6,7

Feedback from all countries

Timeline for setting up EPOS-ERIC (1/2)

Intermediate objective n°

Date Action or document Acting Objective

6 April 2013 (M30)

Draft MoU or Letter of intent for collaborating in setting up EPOS-ERIC

WP2 Commitment of the Member States

7 Oct 2013 (M36)

2nd meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC)

Hosting country (convener)

Signature of MoU or LoI, hosting country providing all guarantees regarding ERIC and given mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Consortium

8 April 2014 (M42)

Final ERIC statutes and bylaws, Final business plan for construction and operation phase

WP2,3,4,7 Approval by countries having signed the MoU or LoI

9 April 2014(M42)

Hosting country entering negotiation with EC for ERIC application

Hosting country

Approval of EPOS-ERIC by EC

10 Oct 2014 (M48)

Signature of EPOS-ERIC Agreement

Member States and EC

Creation of EPOS-ERIC

Timeline for setting up EPOS ERIC (2/2)

Conclusion• Governance is not just about designing power and

money flow, accountability…

• Governance is crucial for realizing added scientific value.

• Structures must be designed according to the scientific needs.

• This is an iterative process of fine tuning and needs input from scientists as well as legal experts.

#2 Legal & Governance modelsdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D2.1, D2.2, D3.1• Milestones: MS9 (MS2.1), MS21 (MS5.3)

• Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives

• Problems: countries’ response to EPOS depends on the different governmental preparedness, interests, & national competition

• Solution: we have delayed the appointment and fixed the first meeting at M24 + Draft EPOS Design Report

3. Financial work

WP4

Costs for construction, operation and decommissioning, indications on

project financing• The overall EPOS RIs total value (17 RIs are missing for the

calculation) reaches a bit more than 290 million euros (290.357.340 €).

If we focus on the results per EPOS partner, UiB (Norway) has the biggest total value on average per infrastructure (slightly above 20 million euros per RI) - a number which is largely pulled by NORSAR - whereas IG ASCR has the smallest total value per RI in average: 389 thousand euros.

If we look at the total value per country (sum of the total value of all the RIs belonging to an EPOS partner), the ranking is modified. INGV (Italy) thus comes first with a total value of 63.45 million euros, followed by UiB for Norway (60.95 million euros) and CSIC for Spain (45.32 million euros).

The overall RIs total value is obviously much higher in seismology (142 millions) as this discipline has declared more RIs than the others. The analytical and experimental laboratories arrive in second position (43 millions). Again, the Geology and surface dynamics RIs account for the smallest amount (1.9 million).

Impact on financesThree levels of funding:

1. Head Quarters •Costs of the HQs = 250 000 < > 400 000 (including 3 FTEs + annual running cost of the office)•Two Options

– A) majority contribution by the hosting Member State– B) common funding, proportional to …?

2. Core Services •Costs of the Core Services = still to be defined !!•Funding model : in cash / in kind contributions

3. National networks and RIs•Funding conditions to give a RI the EPOS label (i.e. secured national funding approx. 5 years)?•…and other scientific and technical requirements

#3 Financial workdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D4.1• Milestones: MS17 (MS4.1)

• Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives

• Problems: No roundtable discussion yet with governments & funding agencies

• Solution: we have delayed the milestone and fixed the first meeting at M24

5. Strategic work

WP5 (WP7)

WP5: StrategyThis complex project with many partners spanning many interests

requires a strong strategy!

To build the community, we have to:• Identify the capabilities of the data provider

and needs of the user community; • Coordinate and implement each national

effort;• Evaluate gaps in the solid Earth community

landscape and define the optimal path forward, and;

• Strengthen ties with similar European and Global projects.

“WP5 analyzes the landscape and designs a path towards long-term sustainability for the EPOS infrastructure.”

WP5: What is achieved?

National Efforts: RI identification + Roadmap• RIs provided technical, legal + financial description• National + regional consortia created• National promotion of EPOS on Roadmap• Progress summary provided to national initiatives

RI -> Working groups• Active Working Groups that span

the solid Earth monitoring community set up within WP6

Identification of Data Provider and User Community (in cooperation with WP6 and WP8)

• Identification the existing gaps in the distributed reseach infrastructures contributing to EPOS

• Crucial for IT framework (WG7)

Coordination with similar initiatives (in cooperation with WP8)

• ENVRI partnership with other ESFRI projects• Parallel goals with NERA, REAKT, GEM, etc.• Global collaboration with GEO• COOPEUS: Bilateral collaboration with US• Links with training programs QUEST, TOPOMOD

WP5: Coordination of other initiatives(in cooperation with WP8)

EPOS Services

• Formal involvement in GEO(SS)• Coordination role for the Supersite Initiative• Cooperation with EarthScope (COOPEUS)• Regional Federation for Data

Infrastructures• Joint participation to EC e-science

projects: EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS, • Coordination of projects: VERCE, etc.• Participation to the Global Data

Infrastructure initiative (G8+05, GRDI2020)• Successful proposition of

EPOS use cases for data infrastructures

In preparation for the construction phase:

• Definition of the socio-economic added value of EPOS

• Promotion of trans-national access and mobility across the EPOS Research Infrastructures

• Establishment of pan-European data infrastructures, acting as centres of excellence for the solid Earth community

• Design of the next generation of Research Infrastructures

WP5: What is planned?

WP7: EPOS Architecture & implementation plan

The Preparatory Phase will bring the project to a level of maturity required to implement the EPOS construction

Therefore WP7 will take care of:

The integration of main outcomes from the legal work (WP2), governance (WP3) and the financial plan (WP4),

“WP7 will aim for a robust implementation plan for the

construction of an effective architecture for EPOS.”

• Following the strategic EPOS roadmap envisioned in WP5 (strategy);

• According to the technical work done in WP6.

• Promoting and coordinating (with WP6) the design of the EPOS Data infrastructures and Core Services

• Involving different stakeholders and capacity building

• Designing and approving the EPOS architecture

• Contributing to defining the socio-economic impact of RIs

• Meeting with the ICT Board


#5 STRATEGIC WORKdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D5.1, D5.2, (D8.1)• Milestones: MS19,MS20, MS21, MS37, MS38, MS42

• Bottlenecks: – appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives– Strategy to contact core group of users – Risk management plan– Need to update the Science plan

• Solutions: meeting at M24, use of e-forms & surveys (ICT tools), Risk Management ready for M22 (summer 2012)

4. Technical work

WP6

Work Package 6: Tasks• Task 1 Interoperability of national research infra-

structures and requirements analysis GFZ , ORFEUS, CNRS, TUBITAK, NERC(BGS), UU

• Task 2 Integration of EPOS data providers: access to Data Centres and technical facilitiesNERC, ORFEUS, CNRS, GFZ, INGV, NOA

• Task 3 IT standardization and e-infrastructure implementation: EPOS Core Services

ORFEUS, NERC(BGS), GFZ, CNRS, INGV, IG ASCR

• Task 4 Development and implementation of an EPOS e-infrastructure prototype GFZ, ORFEUS, CNRS, NERC(BGS), IG ASCR

WP6 - What has been achieved so far?• Establishment of 8 technical Working Groups (WGs)• Technical survey: data from 240 European RIs• Screening and sorting of the survey results into 8 WGs• Initial review and analysis of the survey results• EPOS ftp-server for quick access to documents• CouchDB for web-based RIDE inventory data base

(RIDE – Research Infrastructure Descriptive Database for EPOS)

• “use cases” for the EPOS database describe user needs (geo-scientist, tourist, emergency response, architect, student, policy maker)

• STRAWMAN architecture to form a basis for the development of a more complex EPOS architectural model

• Core Services: discussion paper on EPOS core services

EPOS PP WGs

WG1 Seismological Observatories and RIsWG2 Volcano ObservationsWG3 Geological and Surface Dynamics DataWG4 Geodetic DataWG5 Other Geoscience DataWG6 Analytical and Experimental LaboratoriesWG7 ICT and e-IR FacilitiesWG8 Satellite Information Data

Working Group 1: Seismological Observatories & Research InfrastructuresCore group (7), WG members (47) from 24 countries

Resources: RI overview, user feedback, project/provider coordination(from ORFEUS & EMSC organisations)

Integrating/coordination developments:• E-infrastructure planning [NERA, VERCE, SHARE, …]• Distributed archives and data access [EIDA, NERA, ORFEUS/EMSC, …]• Mobile off-shore and on-shore deployments [AlpArray, …]• Science plan (step one: white paper on-/off shore experiments)

Workshops/meetings (examples):• Series of IT development coordination workshops (~ 2/3 months)• Global challenges for seismological data analysis May 25-30, 2012. Erice• Observatory coordination meeting Nov 12-14, 2012. Istanbul• Sessions and discussions at EGU and ESC meetings

Volcano Observations Working Group (WG 2)

• To optimize the best architecture for the multidisciplinary distributed Research Infrastructure among the observatories;

• To guarantee the technical interoperability of the distributed Research Infrastructures;• To guarantee the adoption of common standards and practices for the implementation phase;• To facilitate the access to data centres and to the use of modelling and processing tools.

WG2 Objectives:

1. Integrated infrastructure of European Volcano Observatories: to identify the roadmap (steps,

initiatives for the promotion, design, etc.) to create the infrastructure. 2. Definition and role of the WG2 stakeholders: to identify the stakeholders in the domain of

volcanological data (National Research Organizations, funding agencies, data providers, data users, …); guidelines for stakeholder interactions; possible stakeholder contacts and commitments; etc.

3. Volcanological DB and relationship with WP7: This Task is aimed at contributing to the

implementation of the EPOS Core Service. 4. Data Policy: This task is complementary to the previous one and would give the guidelines for the data

policy of volcanological products (i.e., data types, data availability, type of access, etc.).

WG2 Tasks:

European community: ~ 20 observatories; ~ 70 research institutions; 23 RIs surveyed

Baseline information OneGeology Europe: bedrock geologyü - Now – 1:1M, in most countries better (1:250K – 1:25K), and diverse geoscientific maps- EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) plan to move to a complete European coverage with a minimum

bestresolution at 1:250K for all countries

- To create key layers – for EPOS research layers may include active faults, detailed geology of infrastructure projects and observatories

- Other layers through EGS focused on EU incentives (soils, groundwater, raw materials etc.)

Other baseline data relevant for geoscientific assessmentstopography (DEM), point databases (e.g. geochemical & age analyses, drill hole

locations)

Geological metadata (an ideas portal) EU wide geological projects such as TopoEurope Interface georeferenced metadata from archives

drill-core storages, sample archives, collections

Interface to IGSN (International GeoSample Number) Physical infrastructure database = Collection of information about

major geoscientific infrastructure that is of general interest for theEPOS community but not easily integrated in EPOS (e.g. drill rigs)

Working group 3 – Geological Data

Working Group 4 - GNSS data and other geodetic data

Main questions being addressed:

• Types of data (GNSS or also others; permanent, monument, rate acquisition)?

• Involvement of commercial partners?

• Centralized or seamless storage? Data preservation!

• Metadata handling.

• Data provider or also solution provider?

• Development of Tools (e.g., time-series computation)?

• Cooperation with other European Projects (EUREF, E-GVAP, EUVN, BKG-Real Time, etc.

First Name Last Name Official ROLE within WG4 Country InstitutionRui Fernandes WG Chair PORTUGAL UBI/ IDLLuisa Bastos WG co- Chair PORTUGAL FC UPCarine Bruyninx WG co- Chair BELGIUM ROBNicola D'Agostino WG co- Chair ITALY INGVAthanassios Gannas WG co- Chair GREECE NOAMartin Lidberg WG co- Chair SWEDEN LMJ ean Mathieu Nocquet WG co- Chair FRANCE CNRSMatthias Becker WG Member GERMANY TU Darmstadt Richard Bingley WG Member UNITED KINGDOM University of NottinghamRahsan Cakmak WG Member TURKEY TUBITAK MAMJ an Dousa WG Member CZECH REPUBLIC Geodetic Observatory PecnyMariusz Figursk Military University of TechnologyAndrzej Araszkiewicz Fac of Civil Eng. and GeodesyJ orge Gárate WG Member SPAIN ROAHalfdan Kierulf WG Member NORWAY STATKARTAbbas Khan WG Member DENMARK DTU- SpaceLaurentiu Munteanu WG Member ROMANIA National Institute for Earth PhysicsGiulio Selvaggi WG Member ITALY INGVBojan Stopar WG Member SLOVENIA University of LjubljanaHans van der Marel WG Member NETHERLANDS Delft University of TechnologyNicolas Houlie WG Member SWITZERLAND ETH

WG4 COMPOSITION

WG Member POLAND

WG5 - Other Geoscience Data:

Geo-Magnetic Observatories

Infrastructures for Geo-Resources

Up to now, 31 RI Questionnaires were submitted. The collection is rather inhomogeneous, which results already from the definition of the WG. Some infrastructures would better fit to another Working Group.

The RIs can be sorted out (with some simplifications) into 5 clusters:

• Geomagnetic observatories

• Research vessels and marine research

• Groundwater and CO2 monitoring

• Databases and GIS

• Multidisciplinary facilities

Concluding remarks:

The treatment of multidisciplinary facilities requires communication with other working groups.

In some cases the multidisciplinary facilities could be split into more homogeneous parts.

The question how the geomagnetic data will be included into (or affiliate with) EPOS is still open.

Some infrastructures would better fit to other working groups.

The WG5 team needs to be recruited in order to better cover the broad spectrum of infrastructures.

WG 6 Analytical and Experimental Laboratories

STRUCTURE Delegates and Laboratories of 14 countries involved in EPOS The group is coordinated by a chair and three co-chairs, representing the main research activities of the group:

Rock Physics, including Palaeo-magnetism Analytical and Experimental Petrology and Volcanology Tectonic Modeling

AIM Turn small scale infrastructures into a coherent, effective, and collaborative structure for scientists

WG8 - Satellite Information Data

WG8 – Objectives- To ensure the availability of EO data and softwares/tools for data processing and handling- To define clear and shared data formats to facilitate the delivery and data exchange with

the other communities - To discuss the data policies of data providers (Space Agencies and Private Companies)- To define the requirements of the user communities- To enforce the link of EO Community and the Earth Science community

WG8 – Structure- Delegates from 4 Space Agencies of those present in Europe- Three Geological Surveys - Delegates also members of International initiatives dealing with EO & in situ data (GEO,

Geohazard Supersites, GMES, Terrafirma, Pangeo, SubCoast, EVOSS, DORIS, GEM)

WG8 – TasksTask-1 internal to the WG8, it concerns the definition of a comprehensive portfolio of the data repository and the computing facilities available today (led by S. Marsh)Task-2 outside WG8, it should establish a link with the other WGs and the EPOS User Community (led by S. Hosford)

EPOS–WP6-WG7 Status & Plan

• January 2012 to March 2012: SG1: To complete the inventory database of existing RIs;

• March 2012 to May 2012: SG1 and SG2: To extract detailed requirements;

• March 2012 to May 2012: SG2 and SG1: To design and implement an extended Inventory database for use as the metadata catalog;

• May 2012 to July 2012: SG2 and SG3: Design and develop a ‘woodman;’ implementable architecture dependent on metadata;

• May 2012-September 2012: SG3: Design, develop, implement and demonstrate a prototype for a single domain (seismic) with homogeneous access to >1 heterogeneous sources;

• SG1, SG2, SG3: Continue to track developments in ICT;

Keith G Jeffery [email protected] acknowledgements to Alberto Michelini, Jean-Pierre Vilotte & Thomas Hoffmann

EPOS-WP6-WG7 Plan 2011-12

Data with Detailed Metadata

SG = SubGroup of WG7

mailto:[email protected]

Achievement of this Track of WG7

Data with DETAILED metadata

WP6: STEPS IN YEAR 2 • Feeding additional survey data into CouchDB• Analysis of the survey data by the Working Groups• Gap-Analysis (geographic, instrumental, metadata, software)

based on current survey data• Completion of data set through 2nd web-based survey• Interaction with identified National RIs and data providers for

detailed specifications (data policies, data formats, interface specification, meta data description)

• Core Services: definition of EPOS functionality and services in collaboraton of WGs and the ITC Working Group 7

• Derive follow-up “Woodman” architectural model

ExpertsKnowledgeData

ProductsInformation

IntegrationKnowledge-Pool

NationalRI

EPOS

Offer Request

Targetgroups

Society• Research• Politics• Public• Education• Economy

Requirements

Dialog

Core Services

Another view of EPOS

#4 TECHNICAL WORKdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D6.1, D6.2, D6.3, D6.4, D6.7• Milestones: MS24, MS25,MS26, MS27,

• Bottlenecks: – RIDE implementation still not completed– Strategy to contact core group of users – IT Requirements for WG7 are urgently needed

• Problems: Shared understanding of core services

• Solutions: Adopt a roadmap for RIDE and finalize the database, use of ICT tools for contacting users.

6. Outreach & Dissemination

WP8

WP8: Stakeholder interactions & disseminationThis complex project needs a good story!

Therefore we will define & communicate:

• The science plan, with science case for EPOS Research Infrastructure;

• The long-term IT integration plan with broad back-up of stakeholders.

• A transparent organisational structure;• An EPOS infrastructure integration

roadmap with priorities;• The projects coordinating structure for

related but independent initiatives.

“WP8 disseminates the EPOS story both within and outside the

consortium.”

WP8: What is achieved?Web portal & user interfaces

Promotional actions / meetings:• General promotion (EC, EGI, etc)• National promotion• Data providers promotion (Lisbon

OBS/Mobile, Nordic meeting, etc)• Users promotion (EGU, AGU, ESC, etc)• Project coordination (NERA, VERCE,

ENVRI, EUDAT, COOPEUS)

EPOS booth exhibition panel available

Appointment of the P&U commission

Stakeholder dynamic overview• Providers: workshops & meetings (survey WP6)• Users: promotional meetings (Science Plan, WGs)• Governments & Industry: stakeholder questionnaire

WP8: What is achieved?

The EPOS Newsletter

• We have a new editorial procedure• We have established an editorial board • We are circulating an e-letter• Involve other communities


• Finalization of stakeholder dynamic overviewCollection and analysis of results Stakeholder Questionnaire

• Stakeholder promotion: users & data providersGeneral promotion: EGU2012, ESC2012, ICRI2012, EC meetings, etc.Specific activities such as ORFEUS meetings in Erice and Istanbul

• Cooperation with and coordination of EPOS related projects and initiativesOther ESFRI projects, national and international initiatives related to EPOSThrough dedicated workshops, development and activities overview, etc.

• DP&U Commission integration in EPOS activities

• Website & newsletterImplementation of further improvements to better meet user needs

#6 Outreach & Disseminationdeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D8.1, D8.2, • Milestones: MS37, MS39, MS40, MS42,

• Bottlenecks: – Strategy to contact core group of users– Engagement of partners in activities– Empower partners for disseminating EPOS

• Problems:

• Solutions: Better use of ICT tools, training within EPOS community

1. Management of the preparatory phase

WP1

Important Meetings IAPC Meetings

• Rome November 2010 (kickoff)• Utrecht November 2011 (M12)• Vienna EGU April 2012 (M18, first reporting deadline)• NEXT Paris November 2012

BGR Meetings • FIRST Paris November 2012

Advising Boards Meetings• AB Teleconferences • ICT B Teleconference• DP&U C Teleconference

EPOS PP Web-presence• Website new updated version• Newsletter• Collaborative Area

Workflow and Resources

• Science plan• Assignment of deliverables to partners• Socio-economic impact• RI identification

#1 Management of the preparatory phasedeliverables, bottlenecks & problems

• Deliverables: D1.1, D1.2, D1.3, D1.4,• Milestones: MS1, MS2,MS3, MS4, MS5, MS38

• Bottlenecks: – Partners involvement in activities– Lack of human resources– Complex coordination framework with other initiatives

• Problems: Partners’ involvement & Risk Management plan (delayed)

• Solutions: Risk Management ready for summer 2012

Challenges & Opportunities for EPOS• Finalize and open the RIDE database

• Update/revise information (technical-legal-financial)• Update info for new RIs

• Finalize the Identification Phase• Identify legal & governance models & financial schedule• Clarifying needs and meaning of Core Servives• Define EPOS technical requirements & Science Plan

• Start the Design Phase• The Science Plan• Interact with users and meet their needs

Conclusions

• We have to do a lot of backbreaking work


managem

ent)



Adm. Assistant


Chair and rep from SEB& TEB

Generic EPOS ERIC model with services

Technical Expertise Board• High level engineers


representatives

EPOS Core Services

EPOS activities and services outside the EPOS ERIC

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; and Data Centers

Cont

ract

for

serv

ices

reco

mm

en

ds

reco

mm

en

ds


Rec

om

me

nds

an

d c

oo

rdin

ate

s

Discussion

recommends

imp

lem

en

ts

reports decides


managem

ent)



Adm. Assistant



EPOS ERIC model 1EPOS function: defining Core Services

Technical Expertise Board

• High level engineers


representatives



Discussion

Cont

ract

for

serv

ices


recommends

coordination


managem

ent)



Adm. Assistant

Implementation CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director,


EPOS ERIC model 2EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core Services



representatives



Discussion

Cont

ract

for

serv

ices


recommends

implem

ents


managem

ent)



Adm. Assistant

Implementation CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair

and rep from SEB & TEB

EPOS ERIC model 3EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core Services and the Data Centers



representatives

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies

Core Services & Data Centers

Discussion

Cont

ract

for

serv

ices


recommends

imp

lem

en

ts

Impact on Intellectual property rights

• Ownership of the different kinds of data:

– Raw data owned by national networks

– Data processed by core services owned by EPOS ERIC or national networks?

– Modelling tools and software owned by…?

EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31 st 2012.

Documents

Transcript of EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31 st 2012.