Search Criteria. For the purposes of PROSO, we defined a case study as needing to satisfy the following criteria: A societal engagement initiative associated with research and innovation in the three domains of nanotechnology, food & health, and bioeconomy. This initiative must have taken place between 2011 and the present. It can be entirely publicly funded, or be a recipient of public-private funding. Societal engagement was defined as activities or initiatives that include Third Sector Organisations (TSOs, defined on page 3) and/or the general public. This criterion excludes initiatives such as public-private partnerships between a university and industry partners that do not involve TSOs or the public. This criterion also excludes research projects that only consist of social scientists working with natural scientists in research: TSOs and/or members of the public must be involved. Engagement was understood to denote an initiative or process that allows for (or at least is intended to allow for) genuine two-way interactions between participants. This criterion excluded initiatives and processes that were primarily targeted at informing and educating an audience. There had to be an indication that the initiative or process aims at gathering the perspectives, concerns or interests of participants and at inducing a dialogue between participants. This included situations that occurred in person, virtually (on the internet), or through a mobile app. For example, a video posted online that allowed comments from the public was not considered to be ‘engagement’ because 1) the focus is on the information being provided, 2) the comments expressed are not a dialogue between parties, and 3) they are not being used to inform any other processes. In the case of social science research, the methods used needed to be a true dialogue with TSOs and public stakeholders. There was a recognition that some situations could be difficult to differentiate, especially in the initial search stage, but if official communication focused solely on providing information the case should not be included. In ambiguous cases, the case was documented and doubts were noted (see Table 1).
Search Criteria. If either party intends to employ an electronic search to assist with identifying potentially responsive documents, then the parties must, in good faith, attempt to reach an agreement without intervention of the Court as to the searches to be conducted, the data to be searched and the relevant time period for such searches. No later than the day a producing party produces documents, it shall identify to the requesting party, by email or other writing, the search terms it used. The requesting party shall identify by email challenges to that list, identifying specific search terms it believes should be searched or not searched, within three (3) business days after receiving the producing party’s terms. The parties will work in good faith to reach agreement on search terms within three (3) business days after receipt of the requesting party’s challenges.
Search Criteria. The search is intended to be performed at both work and manifestation metadata. Works can be searchable by the following metadata: • Title • Contributor(s) • Language of Text • ISTC (in the future when ISTC will be assigned to works) • ISNI (in the future when ISNI will be in place) To search at manifestation level it is necessary at least to add one of the following metadata: • ISBN • Publisher • Imprint • Country Of Publication Search modes Initially the system shall allow end users to perform single searches. According to different user needs that may arise during the ROW evolution the implementation of bulk searches is foreseen.
Search Criteria. Section 1(ff)(ii) is amended to delete the words “to Idearc”.
