Developing and Standardising Definitions for Research Information: Framework and Methods of Successful Process Documentation

We present a framework for a transparency-oriented process of developing semantic definitions for research information. The framework is applied to the project Research Core Dataset (2013-2015) that provided the context for developing a set of core definitions for research information for the German science system.

[1]  Tudor Groza,et al.  A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web , 2013, Semantic Web.

[2]  Josh Brown,et al.  CERIF in Action: Synthesise, standardise and productionise CERIF for Higher Education Institutions , 2012, CRIS.

[3]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events , 2001 .

[4]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[5]  Brigitte Jörg.  Standardising research contexts towards system interoperability – and more , 2014 .

[6]  Werner Dees,et al.  Research Information Standardization as a Wicked Problem: Possible Consequences for the Standardization Process. Case Study of the Specification Project of the German Research Core Dataset , 2014, CRIS.

[7]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning DOI 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2009 .

[8]  Kuntz Werner,et al.  Issues as Elements of Information Systems , 1970 .

[9]  Rüdiger Zarnekow,et al.  Fostering Transparency in Policy Development Processes - A Development Transparency Framework , 2015, ECIS.

[10]  Ken Schwaber,et al.  SCRUM Development Process , 1997 .

[11]  Mathias Riechert,et al.  Research Information Standardization as a Wicked Problem: Possible Consequences for the Standardization Process , 2014 .

[12]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[13]  Stefan Hornbostel,et al.  The Research Core Dataset for the German science system: challenges, processes and principles of a contested standardization project , 2016, Scientometrics.

[14]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[15]  C. Tenopir,et al.  Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  Alastair Renton,et al.  Seeing the point of politics: exploring the use of CSAV techniques as aids to understanding the content of political debates in the Scottish Parliament , 2006, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Euripidis Loukis,et al.  A Multi-Method Evaluation of Different Models of Structured Electronic Consultation on Government Policies , 2012, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[18]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes , 2003 .

[19]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Value of Conceptually Explicit Notations in Collaborative Learning , 2008 .

[21]  Stefan Hornbostel,et al.  The Research Core Dataset for the German science system: developing standards for an integrated management of research information , 2016, Scientometrics.

[22]  Werner Dees,et al.  Developing definitions of research information metadata as a wicked problem? Characterisation and solution by argumentation visualisation , 2016, Program.

[23]  Grete Christina Lingjærde,et al.  The practical implementation of the CRIS system CRIStin and the goals/challenges of bringing 150 institutions into production within a year , 2012, CRIS.

[24]  Christoph Quix,et al.  Modelling National Research Information Contexts Based on CERIF , 2016, CRIS.