#  1 Introduction

##  1.1 Preamble

The _**SESAME Project** _ 1  ( _**Grant Agreement (GA) No.297291** _ )
_-hereinafter mentioned as the “Project”-_ is an active part of the 5G-PPP
initiative and targets innovations around three central elements in 5G, as
follows:

  1. The placement of network intelligence and applications in the network edge through Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and Edge Cloud Computing; 

  

  2. The substantial evolution of the Small Cell concept, already mainstream in 4G but expected to deliver its full potential in the challenging high dense 5G scenarios, _and_ ; 

  

  3. The consolidation of multi-tenancy in communications infrastructures, allowing several operators/service providers to engage in new sharing models of both access capacity and edge computing capabilities. 

  

  

SESAME proposes the Cloud- _Enabled_ Small Cell (CESC) concept which is a new
multi-operator enabled Small Cell that integrates a virtualized execution
platform (i.e., the Light DC ( _Data Center_ )) for deploying Virtual Network
Functions (VNFs), supporting powerful “ _self-x”_ 2  management and executing
novel applications and services inside the access network infrastructure. The
Light DC will feature low-power processors and hardware accelerators for time
critical operations and will build a high manageable clustered edge computing
infrastructure. This approach will allow new stakeholders to dynamically enter
the value chain by acting as neutral host providers in high traffic areas
where densification of multiple networks is not practical. The optimal
management of a CESC deployment is a key challenge of SESAME, for which new
orchestration, NFV management, virtualization of management views per tenant,
“self-x” features and radio access management techniques will be developed.

After designing, specifying and developing the architecture and all the
involved CESC modules, SESAME will culminate with a prototype with all
functionalities for proving the concept in relevant use cases. Besides, CESC
will be formulated consistently and synergistically with other 5G-PPP
components through coordination with the corresponding projects.

##  1.2 Framework for Data Management

An old tradition and a new technology have been “converged” to realize an
exceptional public good. The “old tradition” is the willingness of scientists
and scholars to publish -or to make known- the results of their research in
scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge and
for the promotion of innovation. The new technology is the Internet that has
modified our lives in the way we work, we study, we amuse or we perceive the
modern digital world. The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and
economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage.
For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a
global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural
heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access.

The “public good” they can so make possible is the world-wide electronic
distribution of the peer- _reviewed_ journal literature, together with a
“completely free” and/or unrestricted access to it by all scientists,
scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access
barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share
the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this
literature _as useful as it can be_ , and lay the foundation for uniting
humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.

According to the provisions of the SESAME Grant Agreement (GA)  3  , all
involved partners “ _must implement the Project effort as described in the
respective Annex 1 and in compliance with the provisions of the GA and all
legal obligations under applicable EU, international and national law”._

Effective research data management is an important and valuable component of
the responsible conduct of research. This document provides a data management
plan (DMP), which describes how data will be collected, organised, managed,
stored, secured, backuped, preserved, and where applicable, shared.

The scope of the present DMP is to make the SESAME data easily discoverable,
accessible, assessable and intelligible, useable beyond the original purpose
for which it was collected as well as interoperable to specific quality
standards.

#  2 Project Management Structure and Procedures

Being a **large contribution Project** of 30-months duration, comprising of
**20 partners** 4  , and of complexity comparable to traditional large IP
projects, the SESAME management structure has been carefully designed based on
the coordinator’s and partners’ experience in running large EC-funded
projects, and comprises of a **comprehensive and lightweight management
structure.**

The main goal of the management structure, as shown in _**Figure 1** _
(below), is to ensure that the Project will reach its objectives, in the
scheduled time, and making use of the budgeted resources, while complying with
the Commission’s regulation and applied procedures.

The well-defined project management (PM) structure ensures a proper level of
co-ordination and cooperation amongst the consortium members. Additionally,
project management has the following responsibilities: Project administration,
project organization, management of the technical progress of the project
according to plans, co-ordination with the other EC projects in the 5G-PPP  5
and other interested parties. The Project Coordinator ( _OTE_ ) has already
previous experience in managing large European projects that fully qualifies
it to lead such an initiative. An intensive horizontal (between WPs) and
vertical (between project management and partners) communication and
collaboration has been put in place, for the proper and within due time
execution of all related actions.

The SESAME- _based_ management activities comprise administrative and
technical issues, including the legal framework and the organizational
structure of the complete Project. Furthermore, a roadmap of meetings and
workshops and related activities as well as quality assurance procedures and
steering tools are described. The goal of the project management activities is
also to “identify and address” potential issues, risks or conflicts emerging
across partners, and manage the intellectual property related to both prior
knowledge as well as project achievements.

The SESAME partners have significant experience with collaborative projects
and have been -or are- already working together with other consortia. All
partners have a long-term strategic interest in the field, and most of them
have contributed significantly to the R&D topics at the core of the 5G-PPP
vision in previous/running projects. Main criteria for the selection of each
partners’ role were excellence in the field, reliability, experience and
commitment, as discussed in more details in the context of the Project’s GA.

SESAME consists of eight (-8-) distinct Work Packages, as described in
_Section 3.1.2_ of the corresponding DoW. A visual representation of the
interdependencies between the work packages is given in the Gantt and Pert
diagrams, as both appear in _Section 3.1.1_ and in _Section 3.1.2_ of the DoA,
_correspondingly_ . The advanced research parts in the Project will be managed
by using an agile management, based on decision points and concrete
milestones.

In the rest of this Section, we explicitly describe the governance part that
identifies the key roles and bodies, the management process, knowledge and
innovation management, including the risk assessments.

**Figure 1: SESAME Management Structure**

###  2.1.1 Management bodies and Organization

The management bodies employed in SESAME comprise persons, committees and
other entities that are responsible for making management decisions,
implementing management actions, and their interrelation. The management
bodies are illustrated in _**Figure 1** _ and include:

  * PM - Project Manager (Dr. Ioannis Chochliouros, _OTE_ , for administrative management); 

  

  * TM - Technical and Scientific Manager (Dr. Anastasios Kourtis, _NCSRD_ , for technical management); 

  

  * IA - Innovation Architect (Dr. Nick Johnson, _IPA_ , Knowledge, for innovation & exploitation management); 

  

  * SM - Standardization Manager (Mr. Mick Wilson, _FLE_ , for standardisation and exploitation management); 

  

  * Diss&Comm (Dissemination and Communication) Leader (Dr. Tinku Rasheed, _CNET_ , for dissemination and communication management); 

  

  * GA - General Assembly (one representative per partner, administrative management); 

  

  * PB - Project Board, executive committee acting as decision-implementation body; 

  

  * AB - Advisory Board (chaired by PM, for International visibility beyond Europe); - WPLs - Work Packages Leaders, and; - TLs - Task Leaders. 

  

Their detailed role and duties are described in the next subsections.

####  (i) Project Manager (PM)

The Project Manager (PM) for SESAME is Dr. Ioannis Chochliouros, who is a
senior manager and department head at OTE. Dr. Chochliouros is leader of _OTE
Research Programs_ within the _Fixed & Mobile Technology Strategy and Core
Network Division, _ within _OTE_ , since 2005. Dr. Chochliouros who is also
exercising the role of the Project Coordinator (PC) has substantial and proven
experience in the coordination of both scientific and RTD projects involving
many partners and complex research goals and has been involved in decision-
making positions in at least 45 (European, national and international)
research projects. The main role of the PM is the charge of the overall
administrative management of the Project, being the single point of contact
with the EC. The PM is responsible for the following tasks _(amongst others
tasks as explicitly defined by the EC Grant Agreement and the partner’s
Consortium Agreement)_ : (i) Monitor Project progress on a daily basis, for
continuous rating of achievements, objectives, tasks, WPs with global view of
the overall Project, ensuring a smooth running of activities and collaboration
among all partners, identifying problems and consequences for future research;
(ii) Provide the Project Management Plan which describes the project
management structure, procedures for communication, documentation, payments
and cost statements, procedures to control Project progress and risk
management; (iii) Quality procedures and quality assurance (QA); (iv)
Coordination between the EC and the consortium, communicating all information
in connection with the Project to the EC; (v) Document transmission to the EC,
including all contractual documents and reports related to the administrative,
financial, scientific, and technical progress of the Project; (vi) Coordinate
and manage the Project’s Advisory Board together with the TM; (vii)
Participate in the 5G-PPP programme-level Steering Board (SB) as recommended
by the 5G-PPP program. In summary, the PC is the legal, contractual, financial
and administrative manager of the Project.

####  (ii) Technical and Scientific Manager (TM)

The Technical and Scientific Manager (TM) for SESAME is Dr. Anastasios
Kourtis, Research Director at _NCSRD_ . He has more than 30 years of
experience in managing and successfully executing research and industrial
projects, in particular, at _NCSRD_ , he has been an active player from the
start of the EC framework programs and most recently within FP7, where he is
currently PM of T-NOVA  6  (FP7 ICT) and TM for VITAL  7  (H2020 ICT),
CloudSat  8  (ESA) projects. He has a strong background on wireless and wired
broadband network infrastructures, multimedia applications, Quality of Service
(QoS), network management (NM) and network virtualization. The TM is in charge
of the overall scientific and technical management and progress of the
Project. He is responsible for the correct execution of the technical
activities of the contract, as described in the respective GA. His tasks
comprise in particular ensuring timely release, technical high quality and
accuracy of technical deliverables. The TM is the “promoter” of the technical
achievement of the Project, in association with the PM and the Diss&Comm
Manager (i.e., the WP8 Leader), to ensure appropriate Project visibility. He
works in close cooperation with the WP leaders and will receive the support of
the PM. The TM will also participate in the programme-level Technology Board
(TB) established by the 5G-PPP), towards technical planning of joint
activities and monitoring the progress against the technical KPIs.

####  (iii) Innovation Architect (IA)

SESAME has appointed a dedicated Innovation Architect (IA), who will chair the
_Knowledge and Innovation Management (KIM)_ _Team_ activities in the Project,
together with the Standardisation Manager and the Technical Manager. The role
of the innovation Architect is to study and analyse both market and technical
aspects, and “bridge” the Project research achievements to a successful
implementation and deployment in the real world. The Innovation Architect for
SESAME will be Dr. Nick Johnson, the CTO of _IPA_ . Nick Johnson brings
several years of market and mobile-industry experience and background, and has
a successful track in productising research and innovation activities and
patents, and has the experience and capabilities to recognise (and foster)
_“how advanced scientific results can be transformed into products and market
opportunities”._ Indeed, the Innovation Architect will assist and advise the
Project in best responding to emerging market opportunities. In turns, by
thoroughly following the evolution of the sector, the new emerging
technologies and products from SESAME, and the mutating needs, the Innovation
Architect will help bringing all this inside the Project, utilising his
position as chair of the KIM activities.

####  (iv) Standardisation Manager (SM)

SESAME has appointed a dedicated Standardization Manager (SM), who will
coordinate the standardisation activities of the Project. SESAME has thus
appointed Mr. Mick Wilson, from _FLE_ , to undertake the corresponding SM
role. The main activity of the SM is to monitor and plan the standardization
strategy, together with the Innovation Architect and the Technical and
Scientific Manager, and to periodically “monitor and assess” the
standardization potential of the scientific results coming from the Project.
Mr. Wilson brings several years of experience in Standardization within
_Fujitsu Laboratories UK Ltd._ , and has both the knowledge and the ability to
quickly “identify” opportunities for standardisation and to match-make between
the proper Standards Developing Organisation (SDO) for SESAME-specific
innovations. The SM will periodically report to the KIM team about the
progress of standardization and open-source development activities within
SESAME, which will then be reported to the EC and further, presented to the
5G-PPP _WG on Standardization_ with the aim of creating joint opportunities
for targeting specific SDO’s which need collective strategy from the 5G-PPP
board, in order to “push” European interests globally.

####  (v) Dissemination & Communication Leader (DissComm Leader)

SESAME has appointed a Dissemination & Communication Leader to coordinate the
promotional activities and dissemination of the Project. This role will be
handled by Dr. Tinku Rasheed, from _CNET_ , who is also the WP8 Leader. The
_Diss &Comm leader _ will be in charge of all the dissemination related
priorities in SESAME, and he will also pursue the strategy to have optimum
visibility within the 5G-PPP initiative, and beyond, to secure a wide
dissemination and awareness of SESAME. The Diss&Comm leader will work closely
with the WP8 task leaders, and the PB in order to regularly update and inform
about the Diss&Comm activities and will also execute the planned Diss&Comm
strategy in a coherent manner together with the PB members.

####  (vi) General Assembly (GA)

The General Assembly (GA) is the decision-making body of the Project, chaired
by the PM and composed of one representative per partner (each having one
vote), allowing for the participation of each partner in the collective
decisions of the Project. The GA is responsible for the strategic orientation
of the Project, that is: overall direction of all activities, reorientation
whenever necessary, budget revision and measures taken to manage defaulting
partners. To ensure the Project is advancing in time and quality with the work
plan, and is adapting as necessary to external changes, the GA will analyse
performance indicators and all other relevant information provided by the
Project Board and take into account the evolution of the context in which the
Project is carried out, notably scientific, legal, societal, and economic
aspects, etc. The GA meets twice a year, unless intermediate meetings are in
the Project’s interest. In this case, GA meetings are held by decision of the
PM or by the request of at least 50% of its members. In between meetings, the
GA can take decisions by electronic means. The GA tries to reach consensus,
but in case this is not possible the GA makes decisions upon simple majority
with a deciding vote for the PM representative, _in case of a tie_ .

####  (vii) Project Board (PB)

The Project Board (PB), composed by a reduced number of members, will
facilitate the management and monitoring of the Project. It is made up of the
WP leaders, and will be chaired by the PM with the assistance of the TM, who
will be deputing the PM. Compared to the GA, the PB is “more focused” on the
operational management and can have more regular meetings, _when necessary_ .
It also prepares the decisions to be taken by the GA, ensures that these
decisions are properly implemented, and surveys ethical issues. The PB is also
in charge of the financial management of the WPs. It is also the
responsibility of the PB, as well as of the WPLs, to identify and assess risks
and provide contingency plans. The PB is composed of the following people,
each of them having both scientific excellence and strong experience in large
collaborative research and development projects; Dr. Ioannis Chochliouros (
_OTE_ , PM, PB Chair, WP1 Leader), Mrs. Maria Belesioti ( _OTE_ , WP2 Leader),
Neil Piercy ( _IPA_ , WP3 Leader), Antonino Albanese ( _ITL_ , WP4 Leader),
Miguel Anguel Puente ( _ATOS_ , WP5 Leader), Dr. Eduard Escalona ( _i2CAT_ ,
WP6 Leader), Dr. Anastasios Kourtis ( _NCSRD_ , TM, PB Deputy, WP7 Leader),
Dr. Tinku Rasheed ( _CNET_ , WP8 Leader).

The PB also defines the communication strategy to update partners about the
Project status, the planning and all other issues that are important to them,
to give maximum transparency to all involved partners and to increase the
synergy of the intended cooperation. Interactive management meetings and
technical meetings have an important role in the framework of the
communication strategy. All information -such as minutes of meetings, task
reports and relevant publications- will be communicated to the PM. It is the
strategy of the consortium to guarantee a fast and complete flow of
information. All partners have the means to communicate by using electronic
mail. The PB has bi-weekly meetings (with extra meetings held based on
purpose), either by conference call or during Project’s face-to-face Plenary
Meetings. The PB makes decisions upon simple majority with a deciding vote for
the PM representative, _in case of a tie_ .

####  (viii) Advisory Board (AB)

The SESAME consortium will appoint an Advisory Board in order to monitor the
SESAME- _related_ developments world-wide and ensure visibility of the Project
beyond Europe. The consortium plans to invite a maximum of 35 members to the
AB, which is to be chaired by the PM. The PM and the PB will periodically
organise remote conferences with the AB members to update the Project
activities and will gather information through semesterial inputs. The AB
members will be invited to annual workshops of SESAME and, further, they will
be invited to participate to the final Project demos. While preparing the
proposal, the SESAME consortium has already received promising inputs (a few
letters of support are already updated in the Annex, Section A2, for the DoA).
The AB is composed of the following members: _AT &T _ (Dr. Steven Wright);
_Samsung_ (Dr. Maziar Nekovee); _Fujitsu Japan_ (TBD); _ETRI Korea_ (Dr. Seung
Bang), and; _University of Melbourne, Australia_ (Prof. Tansu Alpcan). More
stakeholders will be incorporated if the consortium desires to further
strengthen its visibility.

####  (ix) Work Package Leaders (WPLs)

Each work package is led by the WP Leader (WPL), who is responsible for making
the day-to-day technical and management decisions that solely affect that WP.
The WP leaders’ responsibilities include: (i) Leading and coordinating the
task activities involved in the WP through the Task Leaders; (ii) Initial
quality checking of the WP work and deliverables; (iii) Handling
resource/skills balance within the WP subject to agreement of the PB to
changes; (iv) Participating in the PB meetings; (v) Highlighting to the PB of
potential threats to the technical success of the Project, and; (vi) Reporting
progress to the PB and raise amendments, issues and red flags to the TM if
needed.

####  (x) Task Leaders (TLs)

Each Task is led by the Task Leader (TL), who is responsible for the
activities performed in his/her task, coordinating the technical work, and
making the day-to-day technical decisions that solely affect his/her Task. TLs
should report (internally) to the WPL at least once a month on the progress of
their task.

###  2.1.2 Management procedures

Technical and operative decisions will be taken as far as possible informally,
and through achieving consensus. The various procedures are designed to ensure
that the Project runs smoothly, by ensuring that the goals are clearly defined
and understood, the WPs represent a sensible division of the work and comprise
the necessary expertise to fulfil the objectives, responsibilities are clearly
assigned, and there are transparent lines of communication among the
participants. A Consortium Agreement provides explicitly the rules and terms
of reference for any issue of legal nature concerning the co-operation among
the parties as well as the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of individual
partners and the consortium “ _as a whole_ ”.

For administrative, technical or operative decisions for which no consensus
can be reached, the Project will rely on the Project Board.

For decisions regarding budget redistribution, consortium composition or major
decisions on the workplan the Project Board is the highest decision making
body in the Project. Any project management decision, either technical or
administrative, taken by the Project Board is mandatory for all project
members, and may not be overruled within the Project.

#####  2.1.2.1.1 Reporting to the EC

SESAME follows the procedures presented in the Project guide to ensure on-
time, transparent and high-quality reporting to the EC. Project reporting as
well as internal intermediary reporting follows a planning approach with
several verifications. This method allows delivery of high-quality reports,
providing very accurate insight into the status of the Project. The following
reporting will be done: (i) Periodic reports will be provided to the EC
(M12+2, M24+2, M30+2); (ii) In between the periodic reports there will be
internal semestrial reports for the PM to keep track of the project
performance. The periodic report is mandatory in all European projects.
Deliverables and milestones follow a procedure with fixed regular reminders,
peer review by two (-2-) partners not involved in the specific reporting,
checking by the relevant WPL, followed by final validation by the PM and the
PB. This procedure results in on-time, high-quality deliverables and
milestones.

Periodic Progress Reports (PPRs) will be collated with the reporting periods,
prior to each project review and submitted and sent to the Project Officer by
the PM. These reports detail the work performed by the partners, the
achievements, collaborations, resources spent/planned, and future plans and,
together with the Financial Statements, will serve as the main Project
Management documentation.

_**Decision making:** _ The GA provides a forum for discussing management
issues and major technical issues. Decisions of the GA are binding for the
Project. All reports, such as the periodic reports, any management reports and
the deliverables will be discussed and approved before sending them to the EC.
Procedures for making decisions at a managerial level, to be taken by the GA,
are detailed in the Consortium Agreement. Day-to-day decisions at the
technical level are to be taken by the corresponding WP Leader(s) where
needed, after consultation with the PM. The Project Board meetings, which will
involve the PM and the principal partners will _-if necessary_ \- decide on
major issues by a majority vote with the PM having the casting vote. All
decisions will be taken unanimously, if feasible. If the members cannot come
to an agreement, a voting procedure _-as detailed in the CA-_ will take place.
It is envisaged that full majority would be necessary to achieve a decision.
The consortium has planned to physically meet for face-to-face (F2F) meetings
at least 3 times a year, where most of the technical meetings (including GA
meeting, Joint WP meetings, KIM team meetings, etc.) will be co-located over a
period of 2-3 days, at the premises of the project partners (chosen under the
principle of giving equal opportunity to each partner to host meetings).

#####  2.1.2.1.2 Progress Monitoring and Quality Assurance

In order to guarantee an optimal allocation of resources to the Project
activities, tasks as well as responsibilities and partner involvement have
been well defined. The management procedures for monitoring progress and
responding to changes have been documented in the Quality Assurance Plan
(i.e., the deliverable D1.2, submitted in M2) and executed regularly. This
constitutes a cyclic monitoring process to be implemented in the course of the
Project. The cycle time will be of six calendar months. The PM is ultimately
responsible for the quality control (QC) of the deliverables to the EC,
coordinating closely on technical quality checks with the TM. Consequently,
the PM can request remedial action and additional reports, should any doubt
regarding progress, timescales or quality of work make this necessary. Every
contractual deliverable, prior to its submission to the EC, will be the
subject of a peer review by persons not directly involved in either the
subject matter or the creation of that deliverable. Where necessary the PM
could request further work of the partners on a deliverable, to ensure that it
complies with the project’s contractual requirements.

The PM will organise regular assessment meetings with all the partners, in
addition to the PB meetings. These meetings will serve as preparation for the
EC review and the necessary periodic reports. The purpose of these meetings
will be to report on the progress so far and to redefine (if necessary) the
Description of the Action (DoA) for the remaining part of the GA. The PB will
regularly handle risk management and contingency plans. The PM and the PB will
jointly be in charge for preparing for the regular project reviews with the
EU. Specific access will be setup for the project reviewers (to the Project
intranet, code repository and the KIM database) to review the Project
progress. The consortium proposes the EU to organise three reviews during the
Project lifecycle.

**SESAME internal information flows:** The strategy will be to keep the
partners fully informed about the Project status, the planning and other
issues that are important with regard to maximising the transparency and
increasing synergy of co-operation and efficiency. The communication between
partners having closely related work will be more frequent and informal (in
ad-hoc meetings, phone conferences and by e-mail) including onsite visits of
personnel involved when appropriate. Informal technical interim reports
covering topics such as technical requirements, architectural issues,
progressing techniques, measurements/simulation practices and so on will be
developed if needed and will be distributed among the Project partners. In
increasing level of formality, WPLs will regularly call for WP phone calls. As
a reference, WP- _level_ phone calls will be conducted on a monthly basis. The
corresponding WPL will be responsible for fixing the agenda, which will
usually include time slots for discussions on upcoming Deliverables. The
Deliverable Editor will lead this part of the discussion, while the WPL will
lead the general technical discussions around the on-going tasks. After the
phone call, the WPL will release the minutes in copy to the TM. In this way,
each WPL will report regularly to the TM and will give an overview of the work
progress and any arising issues. These lines of communication will ensure that
any major deviation from the work plan will be spotted immediately and prompt
appropriate corrective action can be taken.

The formal flow of information will take place during Technical meetings
(face-to-face), which will be conducted approximately three times a year. The
objectives of these meetings will be to discuss technical issues and overall
project progress. Representatives will report to the rest of partners, thus
highlighting any divergence from the proposed plan and schedule. The PM will
be responsible (with the assistance of TM and WPLs) for the preparation of the
agendas, co-ordination of the meetings, and production of the minutes.

On the other side, a project collaborative infrastructure, accessible through
the web, has been set-up and used for distribution of documents among
partners. This infrastructure will enable all partners to deposit and retrieve
all relevant information regarding the Project. Furthermore it will include
the capability of collaborative edition of documents, thus improving joint
document management within the project. The Project Coordinator has
established and will maintain this infrastructure. More detailed information
is given in the related SESAME deliverable _D1.1 (“Project Website”)._

**Deliverables handling:** Deliverables will be elaborated as a joint effort
among the partners involved in the related WP. Their completion will be under
the responsibility of the relevant WPL, who will be assisted by the
Deliverable Editor identified in the workplan and will count on the
contributions from the other partners. The Deliverable Editor will establish a
calendar for the elaboration of the document well in advance of the submission
deadline, considering several rounds of contributions and rounds for
discussion and refinement. Once the Deliverable Editor and WPL feel that the
document is completed, it will be forwarded to the TM, who will check that it
is compliant with the quality assurance (QA) directives. If needed, the
document will return to the WP domain for complete alignment with the desired
quality. Once approved by the TM, the document will be forwarded to PB for
formal approval before submission to EC. If comments arise from PB, again the
document will return to WP domain and a new iteration will be established.
When defining the calendar, the following periods need to be considered: (i)
PB validation process starts 10 days in advance of official deliverable
submission deadline; (ii) TM review process starts 20 days in advance of
official deliverable submission deadline. Therefore, 10 days are enabled for
TM to review and comment on the document and the WP to address the comments in
case, before the document is forwarded to PB. Editorial guidelines (not only
for Deliverables but for all types of documents used in the project),
templates and document naming policies will be defined and will be available
in the document management platform.

**Information dissemination outside SESAME domain:** One of the objectives of
the SESAME is to raise awareness and impact on a wider community.
Consequently, a specific task (T8.1) has been considered in the workplan and a
specific dissemination plan with concrete goals for dissemination that will
oblige each individual partner to undertake certain activities and actions
will be defined, as in the related deliverable _D8.1 (“Plans for
Dissemination, Communication, Standardization and Exploitation, Interaction
with 5G-PPP”_ ). The dissemination processes are detailing the SESAME
ambitions and means, and describing the overall processes encompassing plans,
execution, review and approval, reporting and impact analysis. These will be
followed as specified in the CA. Decision on the dissemination level of the
project foreground will be made by the PB. Any objection to the planned
dissemination actions shall be made in accordance with the Grant Agreement.

**Technical problems and conflict resolution:** Technical problems will be
discussed on the level of each WP. The WPL leader will lead discussions and
make decisions, while ensuring that the work plan is respected. The WPL shall
report to the TM technical problems or solutions that have or may have
influences on other WPs. If a problem cannot be solved on the level of the WP,
the TM is responsible of taking a decision to solve the problem amicably. In
the unlikely event of conflict not being resolved at TM level, PM and PB will
be responsible to mediate in the conflict and to facilitate an end to the
conflict. They will act in accordance to what will be established in the
Consortium Agreement.

**Consortium Agreement (CA):** As mandated by EU project contractual
obligations, all partners of the consortium needed to sign a Consortium
Agreement before the contract with the European Commission is executed. Role
of the Project Management (and especially of the PM together with the PB) is
to modify and/or update the preestablished CA, based on the possibly changing
conditions in the Projects (change of partners, “shift” of responsibilities,
change of technical boundary conditions, etc.). The purpose of the actual CA
is to specify the internal organization of the work between the partners, to
organise the management of the Project, to define rights and obligations of
the partners, including -but not limited to- their respective liability and
indemnification as to the work performed under the Project, and more generally
to define and rule the legal structure and functioning of the consortium.
Moreover, the CA also addresses issues such as appropriate management of
knowledge in the sense of protection of know-how and more generally of any
knowledge and relevant intellectual property rights in any way resulting from
the Project. The CA also has the purpose to integrate or

“supplement” some of the provisions of the Grant Agreement, for example those
concerning Access Rights; as to the ruling of certain matters, the CA may set
out specific rights and obligations of the partners, which may integrate or
supplement, but which will under no circumstance be in conflict with those of
the GA.

#  3 Knowledge Management and Protection Strategy

##  3.1 Management of Knowledge

Information flows within the Project both vertically and horizontally. The
“vertical flow” of information comprises principally the administrative issues
(e.g., financial progress reports, consolidated reports, meeting minutes and
cost claims/advance payments), whereas the scientific and technical
information flow is generally more appropriate to a less formal and horizontal
process. The core of the information exchange is the SESAME web portal that is
visible to SESAME partners (also known as the _Collaborative Working
Environment_ ). Any collaborating partners will acquire free access on a
confidential basis to all items displayed in the KM database, unless
additional ad-hoc restrictions have been negotiated, in advance. This platform
also includes basic workflow tools to automate and simplify the working
procedures. For the Project partners, the website provides full access to all
achievements in detail, whereas the annual report, publications, and sequence
search sections will be open also to the public. Project summary, general
information and public reports have will be made available for everybody on
the Internet, also as a means to effectively communicate and coordinate, _if
possible_ , with parties outside the consortium (such as other related 5G-PPP
projects or the European Commission (EC)). The EC will receive a special
access code to access the necessary reports as well as to access prototypes on
the review process, _if and/or where necessary_ . The database and periodic
reports will greatly help in assembling the Annual and Interim reports for the
Commission.

More detailed information about the exact repositories of the Project,
corresponding to a public website accessed by any third party and to a private
website accessed by authorised physical and/or legal persons is given in the
already submitted deliverable _D1.1 (“Project Website”)_ .

SESAME will continuously host a comprehensive public website  (
__http://www.sesame-h2020-5g-ppp.eu/_ _ )  that will contain all relevant
information about the Project.

A public section allows sharing information and documents among all partners,
also including any other “third party” (i.e., physical and/or legal persons)
that may express interest to access such data and receive information about
the scope and the achievements of the SESAME- _based_ effort. The public
section presents the specific aims, the vision and objectives as well as the
goals, the plan, the development(s) and the intended achievements of the
Project. It is also used to publish the public deliverables and the papers (as
well as other works and/or relevant presentations) that are to be presented or
accepted in international conferences, workshops, meetings and other similar
activities towards supporting a proper dissemination and exploitation policy
of the Project).

Furthermore it includes references to the related 5G-PPP context, as promoted
by the European Commission, and potentially affecting progress of the SESAME
effort. In addition, the public part includes an indicative description of the
profiles of the involved SESAME partners as well as a part for links to other
informative areas. There is also an explicit link to a private part of the
website, accessible only by the partners or the “ _beneficiaries_ ”) of the
Project, by using specific credentials  (
__http://programsection.oteresearch.gr_ _ )  . _**Figure 2** _ provides an
indicative snapshot of the existing part of the public website.

The private part of the website serves as the “project management and
collaboration platform” bearing (among others) advanced document management
features (e.g. document versioning/history, documents checkin/out/locking,
etc.) and a powerful search functionality to ensure efficient work and
collaboration among partners.

The SESAME consortium is always proactively taking supplementary measures to
raise awareness and encourage the implementation of the technical, business,
social and all other concepts developed though the development of the public
website.

**Figure 2: SESAME Public Section -_Welcome Screen_ **

##  3.2 Ethics and Management of IPRs

The SESAME consortium is to respect the framework that is structured by the
joined provisions of:

  * The _European Directive 95/46/EC_ (“ _Protection of personal data”_ )  9  , and; 

  

  * _Opinion 23/05/2000 of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies concerning “Citizens Rights and New Technologies: A European Challenge”_ 10  . 

  

The SESAME partners will also abide by professional ethical practices and
comply with the _Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union_ 11  .

The SESAME consortium recognises the importance of IPRs under a basic
philosophy as discussed in the following sections: The general architecture
and scientific results defined during the course of the Project are public
domain research, intended to be used in international fora to advance
technological development and scientific knowledge. Basic methods,
architectures and functionalities should be available for scrutiny, peerreview
and adaptation. Only this way can industry and standardisation groups accept
the results of SESAME and this is a procedure already applied in many similar
cases of research projects, until today. IPR will be managed in line with a
principle of equality of all the partners towards the foreground knowledge and
in full compliance with the general Commission policies regarding ownership,
exploitation rights and confidentiality.

Valuable IPRs that might come up during the course of the Project from the
work in the areas of new technological innovations with direct product use,
shall be protected by the consortium and/or single partner entity within the
Project. The IPRs shall be shared with reasonable rules, and the _H2020_
contract rules shall be strictly adhered to.

For handling patents, the consortium will also apply proven methods used in
previous EC projects. The partners will inform the consortium of technologies,
algorithms, etc. that they offer for use in the WPs that they have patented,
are in the process of patenting, or consider patenting. Similarly, if
patentable methods and techniques are generated within Project- _based_
activities, the patenting activities will aim to protect the rights of all
partners participating in these specific activities. Lists of patents related
to the Project, whether adopted, applied or generated will be maintained for
reference, and are to be included in reports submitted to the Commission. The
Consortium Agreement (CA) provides rules for handling confidentiality and IPR
to the benefit for the Consortium and its partners. All the Project
documentation will be stored electronically and as paper copies. Classified
Documents will be handled according to proper rules with regard to
classification (as described above), numbering and locked storing and
distribution limitations.

In general, knowledge, innovations, concepts and solutions that are not going
to be protected by patent applications by the participants will be made public
after agreement between the partners, to “allow others to benefit” from these
results and exploit them. However, where results require patents to show the
impact of VITAL, we will perform freedom to operate searches to determine that
this does not infringe on patents belonging to others.

The Consortium Agreement provides rules for handling confidentiality and IPR
to the benefit for the SESAME Consortium and its partners. All the project
documentation will be stored electronically and as paper copies. Classified
documents will be handled according to proper rules with regard to
classification (as described above), numbering and locked storing and
distribution limitations.

The policy, that will govern the IPR management in the scope of SESAME, is
driven by the following principles, which will be detailed in the Consortium
Agreement: (i) Policy for Ownership and Protection of knowledge; (ii)
Dissemination and Use policy; (iii) Access rights for use of knowledge; (iv)
Confidentiality; (v) Ownership of results / joint ownership of results /
difficult cases (i.e. pre-existing know-how so closely linked with result
difficult to distinguish pre-existing know-how and result); (vi) Legal
protection of results (patent rights); (vii) Commercial exploitation of
results and any necessary access right; (viii) Commercial obligation; (ix)
Relevant Patents, know-how, and information Sublicense; (x )Pre-existing know-
how excluded from contract.

Nevertheless, many specific IPR cases, that will need a concrete solution from
the bases previously fixed, may also exist. In these conflict situations, the
General Assembly will be the responsible Body to arbitrate a solution.
Furthermore, the IPR strategy and the updates will be monitored by the
Knowledge and Innovation Management (KIM) team and during the periodic
meetings; any IPR updates will be presented and approved upon consensus of the
KIM team.

#  4 Open Access Policy

Usually, academic research seems to be focused on questions of essential
scientific interest, the so-called _basic research_ . This is generally
intended to merely disclose new scientific and technical knowledge through
publications. On the other hand, the _applied research_ performed by the
industry is normally aimed at commercialising the resulting innovation and
therefore intended to increase the company value. To this end, research
results are protected through patents and trade secrets  12  . According this
kind of distinction, “publication is the most suitable means of knowledge
dissemination for research organizations/universities (ROs) as it permits the
fastest and open diffusion of research results. On the contrary, patents offer
the industry the strongest protection to commercialise their innovation and
recover the costs of the research investments. However, this scenario has been
critically changed, and expectations of _“how ROs create and manage their
knowledge”_ are changing rapidly, as this is increasingly considered by
academic personnel as a source of income. This is also due to the fact that
universities are encouraged to collaborate with private companies on research
projects in different areas, which constitutes an expansion of their research
interests into other sectors, such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, ICT and
so forth. As a consequence, the boundary between scientific and applied
research has blurred and, while the industry dissemination approach did not go
through any significant transformation, the ROs' strategy moved away from the
traditional “publishing”. ROs have in fact started focusing on the opportunity
to patent  13  research results, and extract as much value as possible from
intellectual property (IP).

The two main means to bring technical and scientific knowledge to the public
are patent applications  14  and journal publications  15  ,  16  . With the
advent of the Internet two alternative means are also available for scientists
and research companies either to maximise their IP value or to disseminate
scientific and technical knowledge. These are: The defensive publications  17
and the **_Open Access_ model ** 18  . Public Internet is an emerging
functional medium for globally distributing knowledge, also being able to
significantly modify the nature of scientific publishing as well as the
existing system of quality assurance.

Enabling societal actors to interact in the research cycle improves the
quality, relevance, acceptability and sustainability of innovation outcomes by
integrating society’s expectations, needs, interests and values. Open access
is a key feature of Member States’ policies for responsible research and
innovation by making the results of research available to all and by
facilitating societal engagement. Businesses can also benefit from wider
access to scientific research results. Small and medium-sized enterprises in
particular can improve their capacity to innovate. Policies on access to
scientific information can also facilitate access to scientific information
for private companies. Open access to scientific research data  19  enhances
data quality, reduces the need for duplication of research, speeds up
scientific progress and helps to combat scientific fraud  20  .

In the context of the SESAME Project, expected publications are to be
published according to the _**Open Access (OA)** _ principles  21  . The
consortium will make use of both “green” (or self-archiving) and “gold” open
access options to ensure Open Access to most _-if not all-_ publications that
are to be produced during the life-time of the Project.

Almost all the top publications in the fields related to the Project are
expected to be published via IEEE, Springer, Elsevier or ACM that provide
authors with both “gold” -with either hybrid publication or open access
journals strategy- and “green” open access options.

Major achievements of the Project will be considered to be published in a
“gold” open access modality in order to “increase” the target audience. This
implies the publication on Open Access Journals or on Hybrid Journals with OA
agreement. The Article Processing Charges (APCs) that apply will be covered by
the Project budget. Self-archiving -or “green” open access- peer- _reviewed_
scientific research articles for dissemination will be published in scholarly
journals that consent self-archiving options compatible with “green” open
access, where the published article or the final peer- _reviewed_ manuscript
is archived (deposited) by the author -or a representative in case of multiple
authors- in an online repository before, alongside or after its publication.
SESAME will give preference to those journals that allow pre-print self-
archiving, in order to “maximise” the visibility of Project outcomes.

In fact, the SESAME consortium follows the guidelines set forth by the EU on
its mandate for open access publications to all peer- _reviewed_ scientific
publications. In order to effectively comply and “guide” the partners to
achieve such a high-promising goal, an _**Open Access publication policy and
strategy** _ is to take place and affect Project’s governing documentation and
further will be enforced and monitored by the Quality Manager (i.e., the
Project Coordinator).

According to this kind of policy, all scientific journals resulting from the
Project will be made “open access”

(with any exception needed to be approved by the Project Coordinator and
validated by the EU Project OfficerPO). Further, for other scientific
publications appearing in conference proceedings and other peer- _reviewed_
books, monographs or other “grey literature”, will be made available to the
general public through open access archives with very flexible licensing
(e.g., creative commons licenses) for the scientific community (open access
archives, such as arXiv (  __www.arxiv.org_ _ )  , researchgate (
__www.researchgate.net_ _ )  , CiteSeerX (  __citeseerx.ist.psu.edu_ _ )  can
be used for this purpose)  22  .

In an effort to “maximise” the expected impact with the scientific results and
associated data and the software (SW) code produced in the Project, the SESAME
consortium will create a dedicated code/data repository in a collaborative
open source code management tool (e.g., GitHub  23  ) for SESAME to release
all the mature

19

Economic and Social Research Council (2010). _ESRC research data policy_ .
Available at: _ _www.esrc.ac.uk/aboutesrc/information/data-policy.aspx_ .  _
20

High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data (2010, October). Final Report:
“Riding the wave: How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific
data”. Available at  :
__http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf_ .
_

21

See further detailed discussion about “Open Access” as IT appears below, in
the continuity of the present section.

22

Publication outputs will be placed either on arXiv or an analogous archive (in
accordance to the Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)) and links from
the project website to these Open Access publications will be published
timely, in order to maximise impact and visibility of SESAME results and its
activities.

23

**GitHub** is a Web-based Git repository hosting service. It offers all of the
distributed revision control and source code management (SCM) functionality of
Git as well as adding its own features. Unlike Git, which is strictly a
command-line tool, GitHub provides a web-based graphical interface and desktop
as well as mobile integration. It also provides access control and several
collaboration features such as bug tracking, feature requests, task management
and wikis for every project.

(See, _for example_ : Williams, A. (2012, July). G _itHub pours Energies into
enterprise – Raises $100 Million From Power VC_ _Andreessen Horowitz_ , Tech.
Crunch. Available at:  __http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/09/github-pours-
energies-into-enterprise-raises-100-million-from-power-vc-andreesenhorowitz/_
_ )  .

GitHub offers both plans for private repositories and free accounts,  _[4]_
which are usually used to host  _open-source_ software projects (
__https://github.com/about/press_ _ )  . In recent years, GitHub has become
the largest code host in the world, with more than 5M developers collaborating
across 10M repositories. Numerous popular open source projects

software and other data associated to the scientific publications. This will
allow the broader community to “access” the open source software and the
related data and/or tools, which is used to derive the scientific results
presented in the articles and magazines.

For a variety of reasons, this sort of free and unrestricted online
availability within the OA framework can be economically feasible, offers to
any potential reader astonishing power to “find and make use” of relevant
literature, while it provides authors and their works massive new visibility,
readership and impact  24  .

SESAME will also produce specific outcomes in terms of implementation of
individual software components which will be used in scientific publications
together with the data collected during experiments done within the complete
Project’s lifetime. To make software and data used in publications available
to the related (academic, business or other) community, such software and data
will be made open source or subject to very flexible licensing and available
whereby different channels. This potentially includes the creation of
repositories in open source code management tools - _such as GitHub, or an
“equivalent” one_ \- where to store the software developed which is in a
“mature” stage and updated from time to time, as new stable releases of the
code are available. Furthermore, since the SESAME Consortium aims to maximise
the impact inside the related SDN and NFV communities, the software will be
also made available inside open source initiatives (for example: OpenDayLight,
OPNFV, etc.) whenever possible and according to the provisions of both the GA
and the CA documents. With this kind of intended policy, SESAME Consortium
will disseminate Project- _based_ achievements to an audience as wide as
possible, and will so allow other parties to replicate the results presented
in scientific publications.

Open Access (OA) refers to the practice of granting free Internet access to
research articles. This model is deemed to be an efficient system for broad
dissemination of and access to research data  25  and publications, which can
indeed accelerate scientific progress. Although this model foresees that the
knowledge dissemination is on free-of-cost basis, this does not mean that the
publication process is entirely free of costs. The underlying philosophy, in
fact, focuses on the shift of costs from the reader to the author/publisher,
in order to readily access and disseminate publications.

**Open Access (OA)** can be defined  26  as the practice of providing on-line
access to scientific information that is “free of charge” to the end-user and
that is re-usable. The term “scientific” refers to all academic disciplines;
in the context of research and innovation activities, “scientific information”
can refer to: _(a)_ Peer- _reviewed_ scientific research articles (published
in scholarly journals)  27  , or; _(b)_ research data (i.e.: data underlying
publications, curated data and/or raw data).

(such as Ruby on Rails, Homebrew, Bootstrap, Django or jQuery) have chosen
GitHub as their host and have migrated their code base to it. GitHub offers a
tremendous research potential. As of 2015, GitHub reports having over 11
million users and over 29.4 million repositories (
__https://github.com/about/press_ _ )  , thus making it the largest host of
source code in the world. [An interesting approach for the latter comment is
discussed in: Gousios, G., Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A. and Zaidman, A.
(2014). _Lean GHTorrent: GitHub Data on Demand, in_ MSR-14 Proceedings (May
31- June 01, 2014), Hyderabad, India. ACM Publications].

For a wider informative scope about GitHub, also see the discussion presented
in  : __https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_ _ .

24

Today, there is a strong and world-wide motivation for professional
associations, universities, libraries, foundations, and others to
consider/assess open access as a “suitable means” of further
advancing/promoting their specific missions. However, achieving open access
will require new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms, but the
significantly lower overall cost of dissemination is a critical reason to be
confident that the goal is attainable.

25

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007). _OECD
principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding_ .
Paris, France: OECD. Available at  :
__www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/61/38500813.pdf_ . _

26

European Commission (2015, October 30). _Guidelines on Open Access to
Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. Version 2.0._
Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research &
Innovation. Available at:
__http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-
oa-pilotguide_en.pdf_ _ .  27

Under the “open access” conceptual framework, the literature that should be
freely accessible online is that which scholars offer to the world without
expectation of payment but, mainly, with the pure aim of promoting scientific
research and innovation. Mainly, this category includes not only their peer-
reviewed journal articles, but it also incorporates any un-reviewed preprints
that they might intend to “put online for comments” or to “alert” colleagues
to important research findings. There are several degrees and kinds of wider
and easier access to this literature. By "open access" to this literature, it
is meant its free availability on the public Internet, permitting any third
users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full
texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as

Establishing open access as a valuable practice ideally requires the active
commitment of each and every discrete/individual producer of scientific
knowledge. Open access contributions include original scientific research
results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of
pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material.

Open access contributions have to satisfy/fulfil two conditions  28  : (i) The
author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a
free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use,
distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute
derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject
to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to
provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible
use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small
numbers of printed copies for their personal use; (ii) A complete version of
the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as
stated above, in an appropriate standard electronic format is deposited (and
thus published) in at least one online repository using suitable technical
standards (such as the Open Archive definitions) that is supported and
maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency,
or other well established organization that seeks to enable open access,
unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving.

The philosophy underlying the open access model is to introduce barrier-free,
cost-free access to scientific literature for readers  29  . In the past,
restrictions to free access of scientific publications were accepted, as the
subscription model was the only practically possible option, as printed
journals were the only means of disseminating validated scientific results  30
. While open access advocates free _dissemination_ of scientific knowledge,
this does not necessarily imply that no costs are involved in the publishing
process. Open access does not indulge in the illusion of an entirely cost-free
publication process. Communication of scientific results has always been paid
out of research funds, one way or another, either directly or indirectly, via
institutional overhead charges. That does not change in an open access model.
The OA model focuses on taking the burden of costs off the subscriber’s
shoulders, often by shifting the costs from the reader to the author, so that
payment for the process of peer review and publishing is made on behalf of the
author, rather than the reader.

Conformant to the OA- _based_ approach, the following options can be
distinguished: _“Open access to scientific publications_ which is discussed in
section _(i)_ below _,_ and; _“open access to research data”_ as discussed in
_sections 4.1. and 4.1.2,_ below:

###  4.1.1 Open Access to Scientific Publications

**_Open access to scientific publications_ ** refers to “free-of-charge”
online access for any potential user. Legally binding definitions of “open
access” and “access” in this context do not practically exist, but
authoritative definitions of open access can be found in key political
declarations on this subject, for instance the _Budapest Declaration of 2002_
( __http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read_ _ )  or; the _Berlin
Declaration 31  of 2003 _ (
__http://openaccess.mpg.de/67605/berlin_declaration_engl.pdf_ _ )  .

data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial,
legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access
to the Internet itself. The only restriction on potential intended
reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain,
should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

28

According to the detailed context proposed by the _Berlin Declaration_ _on
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities._

29

P. Van Eecke, J. Kelly, P. Bolger and M. Truyens (2009). Monitoring and
analysis of technology transfer and intellectual property regimes and their
use Results of a study carried out on behalf of the European Commission (DG
Research). Mason Hayes+Curran, Brussels-Dublin, August 2009\.

30

M.J. Velterop (2004). Open Access: Science Publishing as Science Publishing
Should Be, _Serials Review 2004, 30_ , pp.308309.

31

Following to the spirit of the _Declaration of the Budapest Open Access
Initiative_ , the _Berlin Declaration_ _on Open Access to Knowledge in the
Sciences and Humanities_ has been made in order to promote the Internet as a
functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base and human
reflection and to specify measures which research policy makers, research
institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archives and museums need to
consider for such purpose. According to the proposed framework, new
possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form

These definitions describe “access” in the context of open access as including
not only basic elements such as “the right to read, download and print”, but
also “the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl, and mine”.

There are two main routes towards open access to publications:

  * **Self-archiving / “green” open access** means that the published article or the final peer- _reviewed_ manuscript is archived (deposited) by the author -or an authorized representative in case of multiple authors- in an online repository before, alongside or after its publication. Some publishers request that open access be granted only after an “embargo” period has elapsed  32  . 

  

Scholars and researchers need the tools and the assistance to deposit their
refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice usually
called as _“self-archiving”_ . When these archives conform to standards
created by the Open Archives Initiative  33  , then search engines and other
tools can “treat the separate archives as one”. Users then need not know which
archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of
their contents.

  * **Open access publishing / “gold” open access** means that an article is immediately provided in open access mode as published. In this specific model, the payment of publication costs is shifted away from readers paying via subscriptions  34  . The business model most often encountered is based on one-off payments by authors. These costs (often referred to as Article Processing Charges - APCs) can usually be borne by the university or research institute to which the researcher is affiliated, or to the funding agency supporting the research. In other cases, the costs of open access publishing are covered by subsidies or other funding models. 

  

Scholars and researchers need the means to initiate a new generation of
journals committed to open access and, _consequently_ , to help existing
journals that elect _to make the transition to open access_ . Since journal
articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, such new journals will
no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they
publish. Instead, they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent
open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to
access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and
will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many
alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and
governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ
researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the
cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts,
funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional
subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers
themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others
for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other
alternatives.

_**Hybrid model** _ – While several existing scientific publishers have
converted to the open access publishing model, such conversion may not be
viable for every publisher. A third _("hybrid")_ model of open access
publishing has therefore arisen. In the hybrid model, publishers offer authors
the choice of paying the article processing fee and having their article made
freely available online, or they can elect not to pay and then only journal
subscribers will have access to their article. The hybrid model offers
publishers of traditional subscription-based journals a way to experiment with
open access and allow the pace of change to be dictated by the authors
themselves  35  .

Public institutions are also very interested in the OA system. The European
Commission is strongly committed to optimising the impact of publicly-funded
scientific research, both at European level ( _FP7, Horizon 2020_ ) and

but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet
had to be supported. “Open access” has been defined as a comprehensive source
of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the
scientific community. In order to realize the vision of a global and
accessible representation of knowledge, the future Web needed to be
sustainable, interactive, and transparent. Content and software tools needed
to be openly accessible and compatible.

32

_**Green OA** _ foresees that the authors deposit (self-archive) the final
peer-reviewed manuscript in a repository (open archive) to be made available
in open access mode, usually after an embargo period allowing them to recoup
the publishing costs (e.g. via subscriptions or pay per download).

33

For more relevant information see, for example  :
__http://www.openarchives.org_ _ .

34

For this other model named _**Gold OA** _ , costs of publishing are covered
usually by the publisher so that research articles are immediately available
free of charge upon publication.

35

__http://www.powershow.com/view1/1a76ee-
ZDc1Z/Five_years_on_powerpoint_ppt_presentation_ _ .

at Member State level  19  37  . Indeed, the European Commission acts as the
coordinator between member states and within the European Research Area (ERA)
in order for results of publicly-funded research to be disseminated more
broadly and faster, to the benefit of researchers, innovative industry and
citizens. OA can also boost the European research, and in particular offers
SMEs access to the latest research for utilisation. The central underlying
reasons for an OA system are that:

  * The results of publicly-funded research should be publicly available; 

  

  * OA enables research findings to be shared with the wider public, helping to create a knowledge society across Europe composed of better-informed citizens; 

  

  * OA enhances knowledge transfer to sectors that can directly use that knowledge to produce better goods and services. Many constituencies outside the research community itself can make use of research results. These include small and medium-sized companies that do not have access to the research through company libraries, organizations of professional (legal practices, family doctor practices, etc.), the education sector and so forth. 

  

**_Misconceptions about open access to scientific publications:_ ** In the
context of research funding, open access requirements in no way imply an
explicit obligation to publish results. The decision on whether or not to
proceed to a publication, lies entirely with the grantees. Open access becomes
an issue only _if_ publication is elected as a means of further realizing
dissemination. Moreover, OA does not interfere with the decision to exploit
research results commercially, e.g. through patenting. Indeed, the decision on
whether to publish open access must come after the more general decision on
whether to publish directly or to first seek protection. More information on
this issue is available in the European IPR Helpdesk  20  fact sheet
_“Publishing vs. patenting”_ 39  . This is also illustrated in _**Figure 3** _
, below, showing open access to scientific publication and research data in
the wider context of dissemination and exploitation  21  22  .

**Figure 3: Open access to scientific publication and research data in the
wider context of dissemination and exploitation**

###  4.1.2 Open Access to Research Data

**Open access to research data** refers to the right to access and re-use
digital research data under the terms and conditions set out in the Grant
Agreement.

The term “research data” refers to information, in particular facts or
numbers, collected to be examined and considered and as a basis for reasoning,
discussion, or calculation. In a research context, possible examples of data
may comprise statistics, results of experiments, measurements, observations
resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images. The
focus is primarily upon research data that is available in digital form.

Openly accessible research data can typically be accessed, mined, exploited,
reproduced and disseminated free of charge for the user.

Public institutions are also very interested in the OA system  23  . The
European Commission is strongly committed to optimising the impact of
publicly-funded scientific research, both at European level (FP7, Horizon
2020) and at Member State level  24  . Indeed, the European Commission acts as
the coordinator between member states and within the European Research Area
(ERA) in order for results of publicly-funded research to be disseminated more
broadly and faster, to the benefit of researchers, innovative industry and
citizens. OA can also boost the European research, and in particular offers
SMEs access to the latest research for utilisation.

**The central underlying reasons for an OA system are that:**

  * The results of publicly- _funded_ research should be publicly available; 

  

  * OA enables research findings to be shared with the wider public, helping to create a knowledge society across Europe composed of better-informed citizens; 

  

  * OA enhances knowledge transfer to sectors that can directly use that knowledge to produce better goods and services. Many constituencies outside the research community itself can make use of research results. These include small and medium-sized companies that do not have access to the research through company libraries, organizations of professional (legal practices, family doctor practices, etc.), the education sector and so forth  25  . 

  

#  5 Data Management Plan

##  5.1 European Community Strategic Framework for DMP

The European Commission has early recognised that research data is as
important as publications  26  . It therefore announced in 2012 that it would
experiment with open access to research data  27  . Broader and more rapid
access to scientific papers and data will make it easier for researchers and
businesses to build on the findings of public-funded research  28  .

As a first step, the Commission has decided to make open access to scientific
publications a general principle of _Horizon 2020_ , the EU's Research &
Innovation funding programme for 2014-2020  29  . In particular, as of the
year 2014, all articles produced with funding from _Horizon 2020_ had to be
accessible according to the following options:

Articles had either immediately to be made accessible online by the publisher
(“Gold” open access) - up-front publication costs can be eligible for
reimbursement by the European Commission; or researchers had to make their
articles available through an open access repository no later than six months
(12 months for articles in the fields of social sciences and humanities) after
publication (“Green” open access). The Commission has also recommended that
Member States take a similar approach to the results of research funded under
their own domestic programmes  30  . This will boost Europe's innovation
capacity and give citizens quicker access to the benefits of scientific
discoveries. Intelligent processing of data is also essential for addressing
societal challenges.

The _Pilot on Open Research Data in Horizon 2020_ 31  does for scientific
information what the _Open Data Strategy_ 32  does for public sector
information: It aims to improve and maximise access to and re-use of research
data generated by projects for the benefit of society and the economy.

The _G8 definition of_ _Open Data_ 33  states that _data should be easily
discoverable, accessible, assessable, intelligible, useable, and wherever
possible interoperable to specific quality standards, while at the same time
respecting concerns in relation to privacy, safety, security and commercial
interests_ 34  .

The SESAME project intends to participate in the _H2020 Open Research Data
Pilot 53  _ , which well compliments Project’s views on Open Access, open
source  54  , and providing a transparent view of the scientific process,
particularly relevant in science driven by public funds.

This Pilot is an opportunity to see how different disciplines share data in
practice and to understand remaining obstacles, as well as part of the
Commission’s commitment to openness in _Horizon 2020. 55  _

Projects participating in the _Pilot on Open Research Data in Horizon 2020_
are required to deposit the research data described below  56  :

  * The data, including associated metadata  57  , needed to validate the results presented in scientific publications as soon as possible; 

  

  * Other data  58  , including associated metadata, as specified and within the deadlines laid down in a _**data management plan (DMP) 59  ** _ . 

  

Projects should deposit preferably in a research data repository and take
measures to enable third parties to access, mine, exploit, reproduce and
disseminate — free of charge for any user  60  .

The **main requirements of the _Open Data Pilot_ ** are listed as follows:

  * Develop (and update) a Data Management Plan; 

  

  * Deposit in a research data repository; 

  

  * Make it possible for third parties to access, mine, exploit, reproduce and disseminate data – free of charge for any user; 

  

  * Provide information on the tools and instruments needed to validate the results (or provide the tools) 

  

To participate in this initiative, the present _Deliverable D8.2_ consisting
of a first draft of the projects Data Management Plan has been produced in
month 6 (M6) of the Project by WP8, and further evolved as the Project goes
on.

information about the related Commission’s initiative can be found at:
__http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-131257_en.htm_ _ .

54

Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code
is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its
original design. Open-source code is meant to be a collaborative effort, where
programmers improve upon the source code and share the changes within the
community. Typically this is not the case, and code is merely released to the
public under some license. Others can then download, modify, and publish their
version (fork) back to the community. Today you find more projects with forked
versions than unified projects worked by large teams. For further reading see,
for example: Lakhani, K.R., von Hippel, E. (June 2003).  How Open Source
Software Works: Free User to User Assistance.  _Research Policy 32(6),_
pp.923-943.  [ __doi_ _ _:_10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00095-1_ ] _ as well as other
informative references i  n __https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_ _ .

55

The _Pilot on Open Research Data_ in _Horizon 2020_ will give the Commission a
better understanding of what supporting infrastructure is needed and of the
impact of limiting factors such as security, privacy or data protection or
other reasons for projects opting out of sharing. It will also contribute
insights in how best to create incentives for researchers to manage and share
their research data. The Pilot will be monitored throughout _Horizon 2020_
with a view to developing future Commission policy and EU research funding
programs.

56

__https://www.openaire.eu/h2020-oa-data-pilot_ . _

57

“Associated metadata” refers to the metadata describing the research data
deposited.

58

For instance, curated data not directly attributable to a publication, or raw
data.

59

A DMP may be also referred to as a “Data Sharing Plan”.

60

For example, the _**OpenAIRE project** _ provides a _**Zenodo repository** _ (
__http://www.zenodo.org_ _ )  that could be used for depositing data. Also see
OpenAIRE FAQ (  __http://www.zenodo.org/faq_ _ )  for general information on
Open Access and European Commission funded research.

##  5.2 DMP in the Conceptual Framework of the _H2020_

All project proposals submitted to " _Research and Innovation actions_ " as
well as " _Innovation actions_ " had to include a section on research data
management which is evaluated under the criterion “Impact”. Where relevant,
applicants had to provide a short, general outline of their policy for data
management, including the following issues listed as _(i)-(iv):_

  1. _What types of data will the project generate/collect?_

  

  2. _What standards will be used?_

  

  3. _How will this data be exploited and/or shared/made accessible for verification and re-use? (If data cannot be made available, this has to be explained why)._

  

  4. _How will this data be curated and preserved?_

  

  

The described policy should reflect the current state of consortium agreements
regarding data management and be consistent with those referring to
exploitation and protection of results. The data management section can be
considered also as a checklist for the future and as a reference for the
resource and budget allocations related to data management.

Data Management Plans (DMPs) are introduced in the Horizon 2020 Work Programs
according to the following concept: “ _A further new element in Horizon 2020
is the use of Data Management Plans (DMPs) detailing what data the project
will generate, whether and how it will be exploited or made accessible for
verification and reuse, and how it will be curated and preserved. The use of a
Data Management Plan is required for projects participating in the Open
Research Data Pilot. Other projects are invited to submit a Data Management
Plan if relevant for their planned research”._

Projects taking part in the _Pilot on Open Research Data_ are required to
provide a first version of the DMP as an early deliverable within the first
six months of the respective project. Projects participating in the above
Pilot as well as projects who submit a DMP on a voluntary basis because it is
relevant to their research should ensure that this deliverable is mentioned in
the proposal. Since DMPs are expected to mature during the corresponding
project, more developed versions of the plan can be included as additional
deliverables at later stages. The purpose of the DMP is to support the data
management life cycle for all data that will be collected, processed or
generated by the project.

References to research data management are included in Article 29.3 of the
_Model Grant Agreement_ (article applied to all projects participating in the
_Pilot on Open Research Data in Horizon 2020_ .

A _**Data Management and Sharing Plan** _ 61  is usually submitted where a
project -or a proposal- involves the generation of datasets that have clear
scope for wider research use and hold significant long-term value  62  . In
short, plans are required in situations where the data outputs “form a
resource” from which researchers and other users would be able to generate
additional benefits. This would include all projects where the primary goal is
to create a database resource. It would also include other research generating
significant datasets that could be shared for added value - for example, those
where the data has clear utility for research questions beyond those that the
data generators are seeking to address. In particular, it would cover datasets
that might form "community resources" as defined by the _ Fort Lauderdale
Principles  6  3  _ and th  e _Toronto statement 6  _ _ 4  _ . As noted in the
_Toronto statement_ , community resources will typically have the following
attributes: (i) Largescale (requiring significant resources over time); (ii)
broad utility; (iii) creating reference datasets, and; (iv)associated with
community buy-in. For studies generating small-scale and limited data outputs,
a data management and sharing plan will not normally be required. Generally,
the expected approach for projects of this type would be to make data
available to other researchers on publication, and where possible to deposit
data in appropriate data repositories in a timely manner. While a formal data
management and sharing plan need not be submitted in such cases, applicants
may find the guidance below helpful in planning their approaches for managing
their data.

61

See, for example: “ _Guidance for researchers: Developing a data management
and sharing plan”._ Available at: _ _http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-
us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Data-sharing/Guidance-for-researchers/index.htm_ .
_

62

Also see:  Framework for creating a data management plan,  ICPRS, University
of Michigan, US. Available at:

_
_http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/datamanagement/dmp/framework.htm_
.  _

63

For more related information, see:  __http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-
us/Publications/Reports/Biomedicalscience/WTD003208.htm_ _ .

64

Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors (2009). _Nature_ _461,_
168-170 (September 10, 2009) [ __doi:10.1038/461168a_ _ ]. Available at  :
__http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/full/461168a.html_ . _

##  5.3 Principles and Guidelines for Developing a DMP

A DMP as a document outlining how research data will be handled during a
research project, and after it is completed, is very important in all aspects
for projects participating in the H _orizon 2020 Open Research Data Pilot_ as
well as almost any other research project. Especially where the project
participates in the above mentioned Pilot, it should always include clear
descriptions and rationale for the access regimes that are foreseen for
collected data sets  65  .

This principle is further clarified in the following paragraph of the Model
Grant Agreement: “ _As an exception, the beneficiaries do not have to ensure
open access to specific parts of their research data if the achievement of the
action's main objective, as described in Annex I, would be jeopardised by
making those specific parts of the research data openly accessible. In this
case, the data management plan must contain the reasons for not giving
access”._

A DMP describes the data management life cycle for all data sets that will be
collected, processed or generated by the corresponding research project. It is
a document outlining how research data will be handled during a research
project, and even after the project is completed, describing what data will be
collected, processed or generated and following what methodology and
standards, whether and how this data will be shared and/or made open, and how
it will be curated and preserved  66  . The DMP is not a fixed document; it
evolves and gains more precision and substance during the lifespan of the
project  67  .

The first version of the DMP is expected to be delivered within the first 6
months of the respective project. This DMP deliverable should be in compliance
with the template provided by the Commission, as presented in the following
_Section 5.3.1_ . More elaborated versions of the DMP can be delivered at
later stages of the project. The DMP would need to be updated at least by the
mid-term and final review to fine-tune it to the data generated and the uses
identified by the consortium since not all data or potential uses are clear
from the start. New versions of the DMP should be created whenever important
changes to the project occur due to inclusion of new data sets, changes in
consortium policies or external factors. Suggestions for additional
information in these more elaborated versions are provided below in the
subsequent _Section 5.3.2_ **.**

DMPs should follow relevant national and international recommendations for
best practice and should be prepared in consultation with relevant
institutional and disciplinary stakeholders. They should anticipate
requirements throughout the research activity, and should be subject to
regular review and amendment as part of normal research project management.

###  5.3.1 Template for DMP

The purpose of the Data Management Plan (DMP) is to provide an analysis of the
main elements of the data management policy that will be used by the
applicants with regard to all the datasets that will be generated by the
project  68  . The DMP is not a fixed document, but evolves during the
lifespan of the project.

The DMP should address  69  the points below on a dataset by dataset basis and
should reflect the current status of reflection within the consortium about
the data that will be produced.

▪ **Data set reference and name**

Identifier for the data set to be produced.

**Data set description**

65

UK Data Archive (2011, May). _Managing and Sharing Data. Best Practice for
Researchers_ . University of Essex, UK. Available at  : __http://www.data-
archive.ac.uk/media/2894/managingsharing.pdf_ . _

66

Brunt, J. (2011). _How to Write a Data Management Plan for a National Science
Foundatio_ n (NSF) Proposal. Available at:

__http://intranet2.lternet.edu/node/3248_ _ .  67

Support on research data management for projects funded under _Horizon 2020_
has been planned through projects funded under the _Research Infrastructures
Work Programme 2014-15_ .

68

An interesting conceptual approach is also proposed in: Donnelly, M. & Jones,
S. (2011). _DCC Checklist for a Data Management Plan_ v3.0. Digital Curation
Centre (DCC), UK. Available at  : __http://www.dcc.ac.uk/webfm_send/431_ _ .

69

Also see: Jones, S. (2011). “How to Develop a Data Management and Sharing
Plan”. _DCC How-to Guides._ Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Available
online  : __http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides_ _ .

Description of the data that will be generated or collected, its origin (in
case it is collected), nature and scale and to whom it could be useful, and
whether it underpins a scientific publication. Information on the existence
(or not) of similar data and the possibilities for integration and reuse.

Plans should cover all research data expected to be produced as a result of a
project or activity, from ‘raw’ to “published”. They may include, _inter-alia_
, details of: (i) An analysis of the gaps identified between the currently
available and required data for the research; (ii) anticipated data volume;
(iii) anticipated data type and formats including the format of the final
data; (iv) measures to assure data quality; (v) standards (including metadata
standards) and methodologies that will be adopted for data collection and
management, and why these have been selected; (vi) relationship to data
available from other sources, and; (vii) anticipated further/secondary use(s)
for the completed dataset(s).

▪ **Standards and metadata**

Reference to existing suitable standards of the discipline. If these do not
exist, an outline on how and what metadata will be created.

What disciplinary norms are to be adopted in the project? What is the data
about? Who created it and why? In what forms it is available? Metadata answers
such questions to enable data to be found and understood, ideally according to
the particular standards of the project-specific scientific discipline.

DMPs should specify the principles, standards and technical processes for data
management, retention and preservation that will be adopted. These may be
determined by the area of research and/or funder requirements. Processes
should be supported by appropriate standards addressing confidentiality and
information security, legal compliance, monitoring and quality assurance, data
recovery and data management reviews where suitable. In order to maximise the
potential for re-use of data, where possible, researchers should generate and
manage data using existing widely accepted formats and methodologies. DMPs
should provide suitable quality assurance concerning the extent to which “raw”
data may be modified. Where ‘raw’ data are not to be retained, the processes
for obtaining “derived” data should be specified and conform to the accepted
procedures within the research field.

Researchers should ensure that appropriately structured metadata, using a
recognised or _de facto_ standard schema where these exist, describing their
research data are created and recorded in a timely manner. The metadata should
include information about regulatory and ethical requirements relating to
access and use. Protocols for the use, calibration and maintenance of
equipment, together with associated risk assessments, should be clearly
documented to ensure optimal performance and research data quality. Where
protocols change, they should be version controlled and the current version
should be available and readily accessible. Documentation may include:
Technical descriptions, code commenting; project-build guidelines; audit trail
supporting technical decisions; resource metadata. Not all types of
documentation will be relevant to all projects and the quantity of
documentation proposed should be proportionate to the anticipated value of the
data.

▪ **Data sharing**

Description of how data will be shared, including access procedures, embargo
periods (if any), outlines of technical mechanisms for dissemination and
necessary software and other tools for enabling re-use, and definition of
whether access will be widely open or restricted to specific groups.
Identification of the repository where data will be stored, if already
existing and identified, indicating in particular the type of repository
(institutional, standard repository for the discipline, etc.)  35  .

In case the dataset cannot be shared, the reasons for this should be mentioned
(e.g. ethical, rules of personal data, intellectual property, commercial,
privacy-related, security-related).

By default as much of the resulting data as possible should be archived as
_Open Access_ . Therefore, legitimate reasons for not sharing resulting data
should be explained in the DMP.

Planning for data sharing should begin at the earliest stages of project
design and well in advance of beginning the research. Any potential issues
which could limit data sharing should be identified and mitigated from the
outset. Data management plans should therefore address how the research data
will be shared. Any reason for not eventually sharing data should be explained
with a justification citing for example legal, ethical, privacy or security
considerations.

▪ **Archiving and preservation (including storage and backup)**

Description of the procedures that will be put in place for long-term
preservation of the data. Indication of how long the data should be preserved,
what is its approximated end volume, what the associated costs are and how
these are planned to be covered.

Funding bodies are keen to ensure that publicly funded research outputs can
have a positive impact on future research, for policy development, and for
societal change. They recognise that impact can take quite a long time to be
realised and, _accordingly_ , expect the data to be available for a suitable
period beyond the life of the project. It has to be pointed out that it is not
simply enough to ensure that the bits are stored, but also to consider the
usability of the project-specific data. In this respect, it has to be
considered to preserve software or any code produced to perform specific
analyses or to render the data as well as being clear about any proprietary or
open source tools that will be needed to validate and use the preserved data.
Data management plans should provide for all retained data and related
materials to be securely preserved in such a way as to allow them to be
accessed, understood and used by any others having appropriate authorization
in future.

Data held electronically should be backed up regularly and duplicate copies
held in alternative locations in a secure and accessible format where
appropriate.

###  5.3.2 Additional Guidance for DMP

This can be applied to any project that produces, collects or processes
research data, and is included as reference for elaborating DMPs in _Horizon
2020_ projects. This guide is structures as a series of questions that should
be ideally clarified for all datasets produced in the project.

Scientific research data should be easily:

######  1\. Discoverable

DMP question: Are the data and associated software produced and/or used in the
project discoverable (and readily located), identifiable by means of a
standard identification mechanism (e.g. Digital Object Identifier)?

######  2\. Accessible

DMP question: Are the data and associated software produced and/or used in the
project accessible and in what modalities, scope, licenses  36  (e.g.
licensing framework for research and education, embargo periods, commercial
exploitation, etc.)?

######  3\. Assessable and intelligible

DMP question: Are the data and associated software produced and/or used in the
project assessable for and intelligible to third parties in contexts such as
scientific scrutiny and peer review (e.g. are the minimal datasets handled
together with scientific papers for the purpose of peer review, are data is
provided in a way that judgments can be made about their reliability and the
competence of those who created them)?

######  4\. Useable beyond the original purpose for which it was collected

DMP question: Are the data and associated software produced and/or used in the
project useable by third parties even long time after the collection of the
data (e.g. is the data safely stored in certified repositories for long term
preservation and curation; is it stored together with the minimum software,
metadata and documentation to make it useful; is the data useful for the wider
public needs and usable for the likely purposes of non-specialists)?

######  5\. Interoperable to specific quality standards

DMP question: Are the data and associated software produced and/or used in the
project interoperable allowing data exchange between researchers,
institutions, organizations, countries, etc. (e.g. adhering to standards for
data annotation, data exchange, compliant with available software
applications, and allowing recombinations with different datasets from
different origins)?

##  5.4 Structuring of a SESAME DMP

Different types of data raise very different considerations and challenges,
and there are significant differences between fields in terms of, for example,
the availability of repositories and level of established good practice for
data sharing. Data generated by the Project will mostly consist of
measurement- and traffic data from various simulations, emulations in the CESC
platform, and the proof of concept (PoC) experimentation in the SESAME test-
bed(s). Without going into full details of the DMP here, there are several
standards that can be used to store such data as well as providing the meta-
data necessary for third parties to utilise the data.

The overall goal is to as much as possible, use not only open formats to store
the data but also open source software to provide the scripts and other meta-
data necessary to re-use it.

Similar to the software generated by the Project, some of the data generated
may pertain to components, software, or figures considered as confidential by
one or more of the partners. The particular data affected by this will be
described in the DMP and the reasons for maintaining confidentiality will be
provided.

According to the discussion provided in the previous _Section 5.3_ , a
suitable Data Management Plan (DMP) includes the following major components,
as shown in _**Figure 4** _ , below:

**Figure 4: Structure of a Data Management Plan (DMP)**

For the case of the SESAME Project, the context becomes as it appears in
_**Figure 5** _ , below:

**Figure 5: Essential Components of the SESAME Data Management Plan (DMP)**

In the following _Sections 5.4.1-5.4.5_ we discuss, one-by-one, the essential
characteristics -or “modules”- of the SESAME DMP, based on the concept of
_**Figure 5** _ .

###  5.4.1 Data Set Reference and Naming

The following structure is proposed for SESAME data set identifier:

_SESAME [Name]_[Type]_[Place]_[Date]_[Owner]_[Target User]_

Where we identify the following fields:

  * _“Name”_ is a short name for the data. 

  

  * _“Type”_ describes the type of data (e.g. code, publication, measured data). 

  

  * _“Place”_ describe the place the data were produced. 

  

  * _“Date”_ is the date in format “YYYY-MM-DD”. 

  

  * “Owner” is the owner or the owners of the data (if exist) 

  

  * _“Target user”_ is the target audience of the data (this is an optional identifier). 

  

  * _“_” (underscore)_ is used as the separator between the fields. 

  

For example,
_“SESAME_Field_Experiment_data_Athens_2015-06-31_OTE_Internal.dat”_ is a data
file from a field experiment in Athens, Greece that has been performed on
2015-06-31 and owned by the project partner OTE with extension .dat (MATLAB
72  ). More information about the data is provided in the metadata (see the
following section).

All the data fields in the identifier above, apart from the target user, are
mandatory. If one -or more owners- owner cannot be specified, then it should
be indicated as: _“Unspecified-owner”._

###  5.4.2 Data Set Description and Metadata

The previous _Section 5.4.1_ has defined a data set identifier. The data set
description is fundamentally an expanded description of the identifier with
more details.

The data set description that is organized as the metadata takes place in a
similar way as the case of the identifier, but with more details and,
depending on the file format, it will be either incorporated as a part of the
file or as a separate file (in its simplest form) in the text format. In the
case of the separate metadata file, it will have the same name with the added
suffix _“METADATA”._

For example, the metadata file name for the data file from the previous
section will appear as follows:

_“SESAME_Field_Experiment_data_Athens_2015-06-31_OTE_Internal_METADATA.txt”_

The Metadata file can also designate a number of files (e.g. a number of log
files). The SESAME Project may thus consider a possibility to provide the
metadata in XML  73  or JSON  74  formats, if necessary for convenience of
parsing and further processing. The Project will develop several data types
related to the VNF (Virtual Network Function) Descriptors, NS (Network
Service) Descriptors, VNF Catalogues, etc., which will be specifically encoded
into the metadata format appropriately in order to have consistency in the
description and filtering of the data types.

72

MATLAB (matrix laboratory) is a multi-paradigm numerical computing environment
and fourth-generation programming language. More information can be found at
: __https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB_ . _

73

Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a mark-up language that defines a set of
rules for encoding documents in a format which is both human-readable and
machine-readable. It is defined by the W3C’s XML 1.0 Specification and by
several other related specifications, all of which are free open standards.
More related information can be found at:

__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_ . _ 74

JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is an open standard format that uses human-
readable text to transmit data objects consisting of attribute-value pairs. It
is the primary data format used for asynchronous browser/server communication
(AJAJ), largely replacing XML. Though it originally derived from the
JavaScript scripting language, JSON is a languageindependent data format. Code
for parsing and generating JSON data is readily available in many programming
languages. More detailed information can be found at  :
__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_ . _

###  5.4.3 Data Sharing

SESAME will use the _zenodo.org_ repository for storing the related Project
data and a SESAME account will be created for that purpose. _Zenodo.org_ is a
repository supported by CERN and the EU OpenAire project  37  ; This is open,
free, searchable and structured with flexible licensing allowing for storing
all types of data: datasets, images, presentations, publications and software.

Researchers working for European funded projects can participate by depositing
their research output in a repository of their choice  38  ,  39  publish in a
participating Open Access journal, or deposit directly in the OpenAIRE
repository _Zenodo_ \- and indicating the project it belongs to in the
metadata  40  . Dedicated pages per project are visible on the OpenAIRE
portal. Project- _based_ research output, whether it is publications, datasets
or project information is accessible through the OpenAIRE portal. Extra
functionalities are also offered too, such as statistics, reporting tools and
widgets – making OpenAIRE a useful support service for researchers,
coordinators and project managers. On this portal, each project has a
dedicated page featuring: _(i)_ Project information; _(ii)_ App. & Widget box;
_(iii)_ Publication list; _(iv)_ Datasets, and; _(v)_ Author information.

In addition to that we also identify the following beneficial features:

  * The repository has backup and archiving capabilities. 

  

  * The repository allows for integration github.com where the Project code will be stored. GitHub provides a free and flexible tool for code developing and storage. 

  

  * _Zenodo_ assigns all publicly available uploads a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to make the upload easily -and uniquely- citable. 

  

All the above features make _Zenodo_ a good candidate as a _unified_
repository for all foreseen project data (presentations, publications, code
and measurement data) coming from SESAME. Information on using _Zenodo_ by the
Project partners with application to the SESAME data will be circulated within
the consortium and addressed within the respective work package (WP8). The
process of making the SESAME data public and publishable at the repository
will follow the procedures described in the SESAME Consortium Agreement. For
the code, the Project partners will follow the internal _“Open Source
Management Process”_ document. All the public data of the project will be
openly accessible at the repository. Non-public data will be archived at the
repository using the “closed access” option.

###  5.4.4 Archiving and Preservation

The _Guidelines on Data Management in Horizon 2020_ require defining
procedures that will be put in place for long-term preservation of the data
and backup. The _zenodo.org_ repository possesses these archiving capabilities
including backup and will be used to archive and preserve the SESAME Project
data.

Further, the SESAME Project data will also be stored in a project-managed
repository tool, called as _Sharepoint_ 41  _,_ which is managed by the
Project Coordinator. It has flexible live data storage capability. This
repository will directly link to the project website, where access information
to different data types can be provided. This will permit the users and
research collaborators to have easy and convenient access to the Project
research data.

###  5.4.5 Use of DMP within the Project

The SESAME Project partners will use this plan as a reference for data
management (naming, providing metadata, storing and archiving) within the
project each time new project data are produced.

The SESAME partners are introduced to the DMP and its use as part of WP8
activities. Relevant questions from partners will also be addressed within
WP8. The work package will also provide support to the project partners on
using _Zenodo_ as the data management tool. The DMP will be used as a live
document in order to update the project partners about the use, monitoring and
updates of the shared infrastructure.