Notes on APARSEN All Hands Meeting, 15 May 2013

Attendees:

  • Simon Lambert
  • David Giaretta
  • Krystina Giaretta
  • William Kilbride
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Veronika Praendl-Zika
  • Kirnn Kaur
  • Rene van Horik
  • Maurizio Lunghi
  • Stefan Proell
  • Mariella Guercio
  • Heikki Helin
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • Sharon McMeekin
  • Ash Hunter
  • John Lindstrom
  • Gerald Jäschke
  • Izaskun Lacunza
  • Herve L’Hours
  • Barbara Sierman
  • Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen
  • Holger Brocks (via Skype)

(Apologies: Karlheinz Schmitt)

1. Discussion of Review Report

Recommendation 1 By the end of April 2013, there should be a document describing the methodology to achieve the Common Vision.

  • The methodology document has already been submitted to the PO.

Recommendation 2 We need to have a description of the VCoE by the end of Year 3.

  • This relates to the timetable to achieve the Common Vision.
  • AH – we need to have clear points in the timeline.
  • SL – there is a period of internal consultation envisaged in the methodology document.
  • HL’H – the Common Vision has to link in with the VCoE. Within the business plan for the VCoE, we need to speak the same language as the Common Vision.
  • KK – the business plan will link into the Common Vision.

Recommendation 3 We should have a strategy for launching the VCoE.

  • We need a dedicated task force to put the strategy into action, in fact this is a requirement of the reviewers.

Recommendation 4 We should interact regularly with other Centres of Competence.

Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
EefkeSmit 2013-06-15 WP11 : Produce a contact list for other Centres of Competence 2013-10-10 DavidGiaretta   edit

Recommendation 5 There should be a process to both elicit and accommodate contributions from the wider professional communities, and evidence will be expected of how this has been done.

Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
SimonLambert 2013-06-15 WP11 : VPZ/SL to put together a process for eliciting wider contributions, to be sent to the group for comment/approval. 2013-08-21 SimonLambert   edit

Recommendation 6 Within the deliverables that reported on evidence gathered, we should be careful to evaluate and not merely list existing solutions.

  • GJ proposed opening up the web site with an on-line form to solicit ideas and comments from outside.
  • KK – we need to put a process together in Year 3 identifying the links to the outside communities i.e. providing evidence that we are engaging with outside communities.
  • ML said we should have a membership agreement for joining the APARSEN wider network (not the project, of course). This should be done by the spreading excellence team.
  • VP-Z - we should identify outside experts to look at the deliverables and have one internal reviewer for each deliverable – these need to be fixed now so that they are prepared. * BS - we should ask for recommendations for reviewers from the people writing the deliverables.
  • VP-Z – suggested making a webinar for each of the deliverables.

Recommendation 7 The survey in WP42 should be made more comprehensive and reliable.

Recommendation 8 The overview of preservation services should be revised and periodically updated until the project end.

Recommendation 9 The project risk register should be periodically updated and monitored.

Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
SimonLambert   WP51 : Coordinator and PMB to make sure that the Risk Register is kept up to date. edit

The covering letter from the PO also contained a couple of points for particular attention:

  • We need to inform the PO of our plans to follow up on Recommendation 5 by the end of June.
  • We have an opportunity to reply to the review if there are any serious disagreements with the report, though a detailed point-by-point response is not wanted.

2. Plans for Rejected Deliverables D14.1, D21.1, D42.1 & those with minor revisions D32.1 & D36.1

D14.1 – Common Test Environments

  • Maybe add some assessments/guidance
  • Ideally demonstrate the evidence of tests being run in available systems
  • Clear point of disagreement with reviewers – no tests were performed on test environments delivered by the previous projects as this was not in the revised DOW of March 2013.
  • We aim to produce a collection of test environments from any APARSEN partners
  • We are asked to provide proven replicable test cases
  • We must realise that preservation scenarios do not have to be homogeneous - they can still be useful
  • Propose to find three test cases and apply them to the systems we have
  • The reviewers still do not like the classification scheme is not rigorous enough – a more solid justification for the scheme should be provided or else it should be removed from the deliverable. Described it as a starting point for thinking about a classification scheme and identified as a gap.

D21.1

  • Complete the information for the services described
  • Provide high level classification of services
  • Cover more services – with clearer approach/selection
  • Include some other references, especially the one about charging models
  • Revision of executive summary, introduction, and conclusions as needed
  • Add Authenticity services from SCIDIP-ES and scalability of WARC files (Tessella)
  • Need to complete lists of implementations of these high level services

D42.1 – Holger Brocks (via Skype)

  • Coverage – language barriers encountered
  • Integration of resources given by Daniel Teruggi
  • Inquiry to consortium to identify further missing resources
  • Perhaps use some on-line translation service
  • Ask Inmark to look at the translation for Spanish
  • Specify a procedure on how to further maintain the data and will be placed on-line for review
  • Argumentation - re-format argumentation in critical analysis
  • Proof read by native speaker
  • Management - specify tangible outputs of WP42 – need to make this explicit
  • VCoE services and products - production and offer of on-line courses are not planned according to the DOW and will not become a deliverable
  • Learning management system component for running on-line courses was marked optional in D42.1 – implementation and offering of such services depends on business/sustainability model designed by WP11.
  • Need to explain why it was described as optional i.e. this is not part of the DOW and they were not contracted to do this work.

D32.1 – Accepted, contingent on minor revisions

  • Minor revisions to WP relate to analysis of the benefits in relation to cost models – this issue has been addressed and work will be carried out in time for the M30 deliverables.

D36.1 – Business Case

  • Analysing the exemplar business cases
  • Had a meeting to revise data collection and assess success stories for the final report.

3. Review of Plans of Active WP’s in Year 3

WP11, WP13, WP16, WP22, WP23, WP25, WP27, WP31, WP32, WP35, WP36, WP41, WP42, WP43, WP44, WP45

  • WP13 – RvH – create a register of standards? Would require significant effort to do this properly to identify what they are – involve WP13, WP14, WP16 and WP21.
  • WP16 – DG – maybe tie this in with WP14.
  • WP22 – In June and July ML will launch the second evaluation process of the model. Hope to present results at the iPRES workshop in September. Will continue the development of the demonstrator and implement the first basic services.
  • WP23 – Working towards the second deliverable. Andrea Della Vecchia circulated a plan. Final questionnaire available by 18 March, answers by 15 April, start drafting deliverable on 17 May. Final version of D23.1 Part II by 10 June.
  • WP25 – Good comments received from the reviewers on D25.1. Second deliverable concerns interoperability strategies. Future plans (and vision): 1. Modeling and reasoning, 2. Prototyping, 3. Implementation. This work will contribute to WP21.
  • WP31 – SL ran through the slides in the absence of DNB. Addressing the question of why DRM could be a problem for long term preservation. Start with definition and classification of DRM tools. Survey of APARSEN partners, based on a few case studies.
  • WP32 –the final report is due in Month 30. This report will be used by the 4C project in its analysis of cost models and strong links exist with this project.
  • WP35 Heikki Helin held a MegaMeeting and a draft is available for this WP. They are producing a survey and the results will be available by the end of July followed by an analysis of the results In October. They will hold an informal meeting immediately after the AH meeting today.
  • WP41 – A good year last year regarding events – 12 APARSEN events were held and was represented at 32 conferences. There are at least two workshops and a panel currently proposed. DG submitted a proposal for a joint APARSEN/SCIDIP-ES workshop for ICT2013. DG also submitted a further two proposals and is awaiting responses. MG suggested that everyone should send a short report to the Spreading Excellence team about the impact of APARSEN presentations at conferences and workshops. We need quality analysis of the people and stakeholders who have participated in the workshops and events.
  • WP42 – Definition of APARSEN curricula and courses, with internal workshop to be scheduled for end of June 2013. Identification of admissible resources, creation of CMS. Implementation of management processes for resource register.
  • WP43 – Three training courses to be presented: ‘Trust’ event, Dublin, 4th-5th June; week-long ‘Advanced Practitioner’ course, Glasgow, late July; ‘Sustainability event, The Hague, October/November. Development of Online Training Portal with WP42 (late 2013).
  • WP44 – A lot of achievements in 2012. Booklet on usability to be prdouced in 2013, and many other plans - see slides. New website to be launched.
  • WP45 – Four more webinars planned for 2013.

4. Status of Integration, Common Vision and VCoE Plans

  • Preliminary workshop in Amsterdam 17 January 2013
  • First workshop held in Amsterdam on 15 April 2013
  • Next workshop is scheduled in June to further advance the modelling
  • Applying method from book “Business Model Generation”, used successfully in IMPACT
  • Methodology for the Common Vision has now been delivered to the PO – Uses of the vision – representing the vision – mechanisms of working structures – common vision follows stages of integration – a timetable has been set for the Common Vision

-- SimonLambert - 2013-05-31

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r8 - 2014-02-19 - DavidGiaretta
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback