M16 interim response and responses

The documents submitted on 22 July are here


Emails received from PO after submission of M16 checkpoint documents are here.

Response to the PO's request for a schedule of actions to be provided by 27th August is being drafted here.

The rest of this page gives old version of the document and notes

Click HERE to go to document comments

Short notes of a telephone call between the EC and Juan Bicarregui + Simon Lambert of STFC on 10 July 2012 are here.

Old versions of Documents for submission by 22 July

Old versions of Covering letter

Old versions of Final version * Covering letter V0.8-4 * Covering letter V0.8-4 pdf

Old versions of Detailed response to reviewers' comments

* Detailed response to reviewers' comments V0.8-3 - typographical edits only * Detailed response to reviewers' comments V0.8-3 - typographical edits only

Old versions of Year 2 plan

Old versions of Year 2 plan: individual WP contributions

Old versions of Revised Period 1 report

* Updated P1 report with Y2+ plans and completed tables with Kirnn's comments changes as per PMB telco on 19th July.

* Updated P1 report with Y2+ plans and completed tables with Kirnn's comments - pdf changes as per PMB telco on 19th July.

* Updated P1 report with Y2+ plans and completed tables with Kirnn's comments changes as per PMB telco on 19th July, comments by VPZ

* Updated P1 report with Y2+ plans - after review by Veronika, Hans and Rene - after review by Veronika, Hans and Rene

* Updated P1 report with Y2+ plans - after review by Veronika, Hans and Rene - after review by Veronika, Hans and Rene

Old versions of Merged D44.1/D45.1

* Merged Deliverable (19/7/12)

* Merged Deliverable (19/7/12)


Old versions of Individual WP responses and input

Separate page here.

Review recommendations and responses

NOTE *Note*The text in RED shows recommendations which the PO did NOT include in her list of recommendations which we should address

This is the draft of text to be incorporated in the full review report. The review report will follow the same structure as the report for the first review, and will provide detailed analyses of deliverables and issues. Section numbers below reflect this structure.
This draft is subject to change, but any changes are likely to affect details only – the reviewers are agreed on overall conclusions.

1b Recommendations concerning the previous review period (Year 1) under review

In this section we reproduce the recommendations from our first review report, with our comments on the consortium’s responses. Each recommendations is reproduced in italic font, followed by the panel’s comments in normal font.

Recommendation R1.1 from first review:

The panel strongly recommends a project checkpoint review at M16, to assess the eleven deliverables due at M14, the availability of details requested to the project management, and the implementation of some of the recommendations provided. By this time the project should also be able to show a common vision for the project including a clear description of what the end goals of the project will be with particular emphasis on the implementation, post-project management and sustainability of the VCoE.

D11.2 begins to provide the required vision – see review comments for that deliverable.

Recommendation R1.2 from first review:

The panel recommends that all M14 deliverables are completed and made available for the M16 checkpoint review (see Recommendation 1). This includes all deliverables mentioned in DoW Part B (D1101; D1102; D1301; D4101; D4301) of which no draft or presentation have yet been provided for review.

Three deliverables (D14.1, D16.1, D26.1) have been delayed by the Consortium after the first review at M12. The panel is concerned by the dependencies of such deliverables and the potential risk wave which their delay could cause. The Consortium needs to clearly analyse, then describe and explain, any consequential implications for other work in each of the Work Packages and for APARSEN as a whole, such as whether anything else is delayed as a consequence (See comments on R1.8).

With regard to D26, the panel expects that the revised report will broach issues raised in the initial review relating to overlaps with other Work Packages (WP22 and WP24) and the strategy for this work in the overall context of APARSEN.

Recommendation 1.3 from first review:

The panel recommends that a more thorough description of the Year 2 plan is completed and made available for the M16 checkpoint review than was available to the Year 1 review, and across all work packages. This should include a clear description of how all work packages align with the newly articulated vision of Recommendation 1. The plan should also provide a clear focus on integration activities in Year 2. It is important to be able to see that all work packages are directed to the overall vision of the project. Where they are not, then clear justification for any divergence should be provided. It is important that Year 2 clearly articulates what the NoE will produce and will have to offer, especially for its participants including clear differentiation from other research consortia and clear indications of organisational model and governance to be applied. For example, in 4 years’ time, will Airbus, will the BL or KB (etc.) discard their current practices and all start to adopt APARSEN’s new ‘shared vision and framework for a sustainable digital information infrastructure providing permanent access to digitally encoded information’?

This has not been done. See section 2b under heading 11.2.

The project has to (1) defragment digital preservation research and (2) create a VCoE. We already answered that we are seeking to understand which technique applies where, thus we do not expect everyone to change everything but rather that they will understand the limits of what they currently do and where new techniques should be used and developed.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-10

Recommendation 1.4 from first review:

The panel recommends that a formal explanation is made to the Project Officer regarding the changes to WP43 and WP12 on training and staff exchanges including a full explanation of how budget has been spent to date and a clear description of the current status of these work packages, both of which clearly deviate from what was expected from the DoW. This explanation is to be provided for the M16 checkpoint review (Recommendation 1).

This has been done, in a covering letter that accompanied the review papers. However, the response is only partly to our satisfaction. The underlying issues about the length, public outreach, number and length of exchanges remain opaque.

More detail is needed on proposed workshops and seminars, and on how their success will be evaluated. See section 2b on D41.1.

The consortium must honour its commitment to staff exchanges, or remove WP12 and reallocate resources elsewhere, such as to WP42 and WP43 which will have a greater impact on the proposed VCoE. The DoW commitment is that “placements will range from a few months to one year in duration”. See also in this report section 2b under D12.1.

Yes – it is just an interval – up to 1 year. Otherwise it would say “up to and including”

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-07

Regarding D4101 we can provide more details on the events and evaluation of those.

-- JohnLindstrom - 2012-06-12

Recommendation 1.5 from first review:

_The panel recommends a realignment of deliverables due dates to M24, so that deliverables due immediately after the future project reviews (e.g. the eleven deliverables due at M26) will fall within the second reporting period.

As an acceptable alternative, the next review has been rescheduled to M27._
The next review is scheduled to M27.

Recommendation 1.6 from first review:

The panel recommends that certification, accreditation and self-assessment tools and various types of testbeds be impartially and consistently described within APARSEN, so that both internal and external stakeholders can have access to all relevant information and details to choose the one most suitable tool for their needs. It is strongly recommended that a mapping of such tools is developed and incorporated within the Year 2 reporting period , and that an overview and documentation of this work is provided at the M16 checkpoint review.

The overview and documentation of this work has not been done to our satisfaction for this checkpoint review.

While there is more information about how the project views certification and audit within APARSEN there is no commitment to undertake the mapping and gap analysis requested in the Recommendation.

We read this as a request for clarification of the guidance as to where the different audits are applicable - we did this in the deliverable D33.1B.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-10

We detailed the tools used in the audits. Perhaps the reviewers are upset that we did not use DRAMBORA.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-10

We need to check our response to the first review. I think we clarified the history of this deliverable wrt the Unit, and the Table of Contents agreed with the MoU.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-19

There is significant overlap and confusion amongst work packages in this space. What is the relationship between D24.1, D24.2 and D33.1B? What is the point of the model developed in D24.1 and D24.2 if the objective post-project is to go with the European Framework for Audit and Certification of Digital Repositories?

This makes no sense at all – can anyone understand it? D24.1 and D24.2 are about ways to take care of authenticity and provenance. The Audit and Certification is about evaluating whether it is being done well enough – it does not specify HOW it is done. How can there be a conflict?

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-07

Recommendation 1.7 from first review:

The panel recommends that issues relating to development are surfaced fully within the project and the implications for these resolved during Year 2, and that an operational plan to achieve this is provided at M16 checkpoint review. Too often the panel were told that development would not be undertaken as part of the APARSEN project or that discussions with Scidip-es would be had regarding development. This means that activities such as the test environment (WP14) and the Persistent Identifier Interoperability Framework (WP22) will remain at purely report level and provide no meaningful advance on the state-of-the-art and contribute no practical benefit to the VCoE.

This has not been done to our satisfaction. The relationship between APARSEN and SCIDIP-ES remains opaque. Without development it is difficult to understand how various APARSEN WPs will contribute to a sustainable VCoE.

The relationship is pretty clear – we all seem to want implementations. I3s (SCIDIP-ES) produces implementations but NoE ‘s (APARSEN) do not.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-07

Recommendation 1.8 from first review :

_The Panel recommends significant strengthening of the APARSEN Project Management processes. The project must improve and demonstrate its capacity to effectively and transparently manage and monitor the project. This should be reflected in from first review:
  • operational management and interrelatedness of WPs, streams, committees etc
  • timely production and delivery of detailed, clear and consistent project documents, from the Project Reports to the Deliverables
  • clear effort breakdown and costs WP tasks and partners
  • coherent Gantt chart and risk analysis and qa, including resource usage, how deviations/risks have been addressed, and a record of review and QA activity.
  • Demonstration of QA and monitoring being carried out across the project._

    This has not been done to our satisfaction. Some project management mechanisms have been improved, but the progress reporting remains unacceptable and no evidence of QA or monitoring has been provided.

    As well as transparent QA and monitoring, APARSEN needs – and the reviewers need to see – active forward planning, incorporating catch-up from slippage, management of consequential slippage, rethinking deliverables to ensure time and money are allocated to the best effect within APARSEN. This needs to be done with a view to the key post-project deliverable, a sustainable VCoE. Mere passive reproduction of the original work programme and totalling expenditures is insufficient.

    Recommendation 1.9 from first review:

    _The panel recommends significant strengthening of current dissemination activities including increased promotion of project activities and results, and a more proactive and effective exploitation of existing social network and dissemination channels._

    Proactive project dissemination activities reported in D41.1 Workshop Summary and Planning report are weak. Since our recommendations in the first year review, the project has invested some effort in increasing its online visibility, creating profiles in LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. However the APARSEN website remains ‘hidden’ within the APA website. Furthermore many success indicators in D44.1 Communication Plan are considerably unambitious for a project whose main goal is to create a network of networks. Finally, consortium members must honour their commitment to publicising their participation in APARSEN via their websites (see section 5c).

    Will add sections concerning planning for third and fouth year dissemination activities in D41.1. On the wiki, we will add events as they are announced (however - future events where APARSEN decides to participate in an active manner could be added as place holders upon decision...).

    -- JohnLindstrom - 2012-06-17

    Recommendation 1.10 from first review :

    The panel recommend to foster close engagement with the Open Planets Foundation in terms of success/failure and lessons learnt, as this would be instructive for the setting up of the VCoE.

    The consortium’s response is encouraging. It signals an acceptable start. In particular, the response mentions other initiatives (IMPACT Centre, PrestoCentre). We look forward to seeing more definite evidence of a worthwhile response in future.

    A key issue here is how APARSEN will develop its business model and how it will ensure its ongoing viability. Central to this is being clear as to how it will differentiate itself from the other noted centres of excellence. It would be useful to see this addressed more fully in Year 2.

    • 1c. Recommendations concerning the period under review

    NOTE Note recommendations on the acceptance or rejection of resources, work done and required corrective actions – e.g., resubmission of reports or deliverables, further justifications, etc.

    We have rejected deliverables as tabulated in section 2c.

    • 1d. Recommendations concerning future work

    NOTE Note recommendations – e.g., overall modifications, corrective actions at WP level, re-tuning of the objectives to optimise the impact or to keep up with the state of the art, better use of resources, re-focusing, etc. Where appropriate, indicate the timescale for implementation.

    We note with disappointment that only three recommendations from the first review have been addressed sufficiently to be accepted at M16 – to have a checkpoint meeting at M16, to have the M16 documents delivered, and to reschedule the Year 2 review to M27. These were all mechanical recommendations.

    None of the recommendations relating to the programme’s deliverables have been progressed to a level that we think they have advanced satisfactorily, and in a manner which gives us confidence that the programme will deliver on its ultimate deliverable, a sustainable VCoE .

    Click HERE to go to document comments

    -- DavidGiaretta - 2012-06-07

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-DEL-D44_1_plus_D45_1_v3-0.docx r1 manage 564.7 K 2012-07-20 - 11:35 JuanBicarregui Version received from Veronika on 19 July with ToC update
PDFpdf APARSEN-DEL-D44_1_plus_D45_1_v3-0.pdf r1 manage 1655.1 K 2012-07-20 - 11:35 JuanBicarregui Version received from Veronika on 19 July with ToC update
PDFpdf APARSEN-DEL-D44_1_plus_D45_1_v3-1.pdf r1 manage 883.9 K 2012-07-23 - 08:53 JuanBicarregui Version received from Veronika on 19 July with ToC update
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_1.docx r1 manage 781.4 K 2012-07-14 - 21:35 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_2.docx r1 manage 934.8 K 2012-07-17 - 14:36 DavidGiaretta Complete P1 plan including Y2+ plan
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_3-with_internal_review_comments.docx r1 manage 952.7 K 2012-07-18 - 16:58 DavidGiaretta With Kirnn's comments - note that although she said "Remove table – doesn’t really add value and hasn’t been completed anyway" I have at the moment left the table in
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_3.docx r2 r1 manage 943.0 K 2012-07-18 - 15:24 DavidGiaretta Updated P1 report with completed tables
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_4.docx r1 manage 918.3 K 2012-07-19 - 16:54 JuanBicarregui  
PDFpdf APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_4.pdf r1 manage 3353.0 K 2012-07-19 - 16:54 JuanBicarregui  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_4_VPZ.docx r1 manage 908.1 K 2012-07-20 - 11:20 VeronikaPraendlZika  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_5.docx r1 manage 907.9 K 2012-07-20 - 15:25 JuanBicarregui Revised folloowing final reviews by Veronika, Hans and Rene.
PDFpdf APARSEN-PR-P1-01-1_5.pdf r2 r1 manage 1502.9 K 2012-07-23 - 08:57 JuanBicarregui fixed black logos
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-Y2-plan-0_1.docx r1 manage 227.4 K 2012-07-05 - 08:07 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-Y2-plan-draft-13June2012.docx r1 manage 366.5 K 2012-07-13 - 11:24 DavidGiaretta Version circulated mid-day 13th for comment
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-Y2-plan-draft2-17July2012.docx r1 manage 412.0 K 2012-07-17 - 14:37 DavidGiaretta Separate Y2 plan doc with tracked changes
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN-Y2-plan_WP-level.docx r1 manage 43.7 K 2012-07-10 - 22:23 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_1.docx r1 manage 143.2 K 2012-07-05 - 08:06 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_2.docx r1 manage 151.2 K 2012-07-09 - 10:49 WilliamKilbride Version 2 of the Coverletter after Wk's edits
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_3.docx r1 manage 148.8 K 2012-07-09 - 10:50 WilliamKilbride Version 3 of the Cover letter after RR and JB's edits
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_4.docx r1 manage 146.8 K 2012-07-10 - 14:57 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_4a.docx r1 manage 145.1 K 2012-07-10 - 14:57 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_5.docx r1 manage 149.1 K 2012-07-12 - 12:10 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_6.docx r1 manage 149.5 K 2012-07-13 - 08:45 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_7.docx r1 manage 150.7 K 2012-07-15 - 11:53 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_8-4.docx r1 manage 149.6 K 2012-07-20 - 10:50 JuanBicarregui final veriosn -doc
PDFpdf APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_8-4.pdf r1 manage 331.4 K 2012-07-20 - 10:49 JuanBicarregui Final version
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_CovLetter-0_8.docx r1 manage 155.0 K 2012-07-18 - 17:12 JuanBicarregui chosen the no access to wiki option and a few simplifications of wording
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_0.docx r1 manage 67.9 K 2012-07-05 - 08:06 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_1-DG.docx r1 manage 78.1 K 2012-07-09 - 11:58 DavidGiaretta Added comments by David
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_1.docx r1 manage 71.4 K 2012-07-09 - 10:17 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_2.docx r1 manage 67.0 K 2012-07-10 - 14:57 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_3.docx r1 manage 70.5 K 2012-07-11 - 21:50 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_4.docx r1 manage 79.0 K 2012-07-17 - 10:45 WilliamKilbride Updated version after PMB on 12/07. Includes section on WP11, edits to WP33 and extensions to WP43
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_4_VPZ.docx r1 manage 78.6 K 2012-07-20 - 11:11 VeronikaPraendlZika  
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_5.docx r1 manage 79.5 K 2012-07-18 - 11:31 WilliamKilbride Version 5 of the WP response. This makes the distance between WP43 and audit
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_6.docx r1 manage 77.8 K 2012-07-18 - 13:17 WilliamKilbride Updated with Veronika's comments 18/7
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_7.docx r1 manage 78.4 K 2012-07-18 - 13:23 WilliamKilbride Further Update to section43
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_8-3.docx r1 manage 75.7 K 2012-07-20 - 12:13 JuanBicarregui just removed track changes and reset pages
PDFpdf APARSEN_M16_Response-0_8-3.pdf r4 r3 r2 r1 manage 174.0 K 2012-07-23 - 09:02 JuanBicarregui fixed black logos
Microsoft Word filedocx APARSEN_M16_Response-0_8.docx r1 manage 81.4 K 2012-07-18 - 16:42 JuanBicarregui Rephrased WP11 and other minor changes throughout
Microsoft Word filedocx Summary_plan_for_the_second_year_of_the_project-DG.docx r1 manage 250.2 K 2012-07-10 - 21:50 DavidGiaretta First draft of summary of Y2 work, collecting together info from various sources.Some info still missing.
Texttxt Telecon_w_EC_July_2012.txt r1 manage 3.2 K 2012-07-15 - 11:06 SimonLambert  
Microsoft Word filedocx WP43Response_toM16Review_ver05.docx r1 manage 19.8 K 2012-07-16 - 11:39 WilliamKilbride WK's re-write of section 6 of the WP response document
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r44 < r43 < r42 < r41 < r40 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r44 - 2012-08-14 - SimonLambert
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback