MegaMeeting on common vision 26 April 2013

Agenda

  • Document on methodology for common vision
  • Scenarios relating to common vision
  • How to structure the "vision statements" - perhaps using the headings of the repository audit/certification standard, as has been done in WP21 and WP33 - (this was not covered at the meeting)

Present:

  • David Giaretta
  • Simon Lambert
  • Kirnn Kaur
  • Maurizio Lunghi
  • Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen
  • Patricia Herterich
  • Gerald Jäschke
  • René van Horik
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • Christoph Bruch
  • Eefke Smit
  • Sabine Schrimpf

Document on methodology for common vision

Simon outlined the current version (0.1) of the common vision methodology document.

René thinks it is a good procedure, but wondered how can external parties can have a view on our vision. David commented that something might be missing, namely a statement of purpose. The original purpose was to make the VCoE tasks coherent, so the common vision was for our use. We would therefore not be asking the whole world for agreement on the vision, as it exists to help us with training, dissemination material, etc.

Christoph agreed that we need consistency. We could envisage areas for which we need clear statements such as persistent identifiers, quality assurance. It would be enough to cover the field we want to. The vision statements should point to activities by APARSEN partners on the way to the vision. It is important to have an overarching vision before individual descriptions, as ult imtaely we need endorsement of the whole.

René asked what is our ambition: are we at the forefront or applying proven technologies? Simon replied that that will be part of the vision. René suggested having a single sentence to summarise our ambition; the problem is that one sentence is not much use. The common vision should force us to come together for consistency.

Kirnn noted that we will probably get different points of view. So we could add to the methodology document that vision statements are high-level, with scenarios underneath depending on the point of view, say by audience group: national libraries or ...

David envisages not a single vision statement but multiple parts; not one size fits all, but what works where. The common vision must have a purpose, not just another report.

There might be a lacking of explanation of how the developing vision affects what is going on in the project e.g. training, dissemination materials. There should be a short section "use of common vision". Spreading Excellence activities should be consistent.

Christoph commented that the vision statements should mention what the project has achieved as well as what is still to do. According to Kirnn, the vision statement starts with a statement backed up by evidence, and includes Spreading Excellence elements. It brings everything together. She sees that the integration is missing: the WPs produce outputs but how is integration done under each topic? David replied that D11.1/2 shows the overlap between topics. The methodology needs a line for integration of trust and integration of sustainability individually; there also needs to be integration with usability and access.

Key elements of the process are top-down vs. bottom-up, gradually bring new things in, revisiting scenarios, input to Spreading Excellence.

Kirnn does not like the statement that "no single document is the common vision". Rather we will bring together different representations. We do not have to specify the structure of the deliverable at this stage.

Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
SimonLambert 2013-04-30 WP11 : to produce new version of methodology document. 2013-04-30 DavidGiaretta   edit

Scenarios relating to common vision

Simon introduced the idea of scenarios as one of the elements underpinning the common vision.

Maurizio explained that one scenario is preservation of APARSEN's own digital outputs. This covers many aspects: collecting representation information, pids, .... It is also important for integration of different WPs.

Maurizio volunteered to coordinate the development of scenarios.

How many scenarios should there be? Not too many, not too general. They must relate to possible services. David thought that we might only need one really interestingg scenario, which should illustrate that you need a lot of things to preserve.

René saw a possible tension between specific/general. The method is OK but how to achieve agreement between partners? David stressed that the aim is to get out of our silos. The scenarios must illustrate how things come together.

It was agreed to adopt a combined top-down and bottom-up approach to scenarios.

These scenarios should pick up the work done in the VCoE wprkshop in Amsterdam which also had scenarios.

Assigned to Due date Description State Closed Notify  
TWikiUsers   WP11 : All to look at glossary on public website and give opinions. 2014-02-20 edit

-- SimonLambert - 2013-04-26

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 < r7 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r11 - 2014-02-20 - 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