Table 1.4 c-1 Work package no. | 1.1 | Starting date or event: | 1 | Work package title | Project Management | Activity type | MGT | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | ― Ensuring the achievement of internal goals. ― Coordinating liaison with the EU Commission. ― Coordinating the activities of the consortium. ― Administrative and technical monitoring of the project participants. ― Convening and organising the necessary meetings to carry out the programmed actions. ― Preparing the mid-term and final reports. |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Unique participant: ULE The project management is a permanet activity that aims at ensuring the project progresses and the fulfilment of the asummed commitments, tracking as well partner needs. Activities must be coordinated with partners and with the commission and the periodic progress reports will be gathered and overseen. Meetings must be rationally convened acoording to project needs. Task 1.1.a: Administrative and Executive Management - Administrative and contract management: Management of the Grant and Consortium agreement and the liaison with the FP7 office and includes overall legal, ethical, financial and administrative management. - Planning and internal reporting - Interdisciplinary coordination Task 1.1.b: Coordination and Technical Management - Project planning and control - Maintenance of the Project’s Grand Vision - Ensuring Knowledge sharing of the consortium and communication within it |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.1.a | Consortium and technical meetings minutes report | 1 | D1.1.b | Quality and Risk Management Plan | 6 | D1.1.c | 1st Periodic Management Report | 12 | D1.1.d | 2nd Periodic Management Report | 24 | D1.1.e | Final Management Report | 36 | | | | |
Table 1.4 c-2 Work package no. | 1.2 | Starting date or event: | 1 | Work package title | Global- Design & Assessment | Activity type | COORD | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 1 | 1,5 | 2,5 | 2,5 | 0,5 | 2,5 | 1,5 | 0,5 | 1 | 1,5 | 0,5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | ― domusBITae general system definition based upon an inquiry on user needs and user experience, as well as on the criteria defined by the specific councils on: security and trust, usability, and interoperability and integration. ― With the purpose to warranty impacts at the global level beyond European audiences, the Chinese, and North and Latin American audiences will be specifically considered. |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Lead participant: ULE With the participation of all partners the general requirements and platform characteristics of the infrastructure must be determined based upon design-implementation-testing cycles and the guidance of the convened advice councils. Task 1.2.a: Users’ requirements and platform definition Partners involved: ULE: 2, UAE: 2, UC3: 2, CBS: 0.5, HM: 1, FUN: 2, AAU: 1, TUW: 0.5, UB: 2, UTI: 0.5, AES: 0.5, CCO: 0.5, SIS: 1, SII: 0.5 - Progressive definition of the system architecture and user requirements based on a methodology of controlled testing and evidence on user experience. - A preliminary description of each module will be exposed to the consortium for previewing a progressive integration of all subsystems (both the interoperability related to a semantic background criteria and the visualization and easiness of use play here a key role). - Final specification after assessment of trial version services. Task 1.2.b: Global Assessment- criteria and tools Partners involved: ULE: 0.5, UAE: 0.5, UC3: 0.5, CBS: 0.5, HM: 1, FUN: 2, AAU: 1, UB: 2, UTI: 0.5, CCO: 0.5, SIS: 1, SII: 0.5 - Regarding the general objectives and early tentative assessments on user experience a global assessment criteria will be determined after collection of criteria developed by each advice councils and solving the eventual inconsistencies. - According to that assessment and tools for automatic monitoring of the on-going services. Task 1.2.c: Monitoring Partners involved: ULE: 1, UAE: 1, UC3: 1, AAU: 1 - Periodic and analytical recollection of the automatic monitoring and other assessments from the specific councils and reports editing. |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.2.a | User requirements and technical scenario definition Report | 3 | D1.2.b | System Specifications | 6 | D1.2.c | Assessment- criteria & tools | 10 | D1.2.d | System Specifications Review | 19 | D1.2.e | 1st Monitoring Report | 22 | D1.2.f | Final Monitoring Report | 36 | | | | |
Table 1.4 c-3 Work package no. | 1.3 | Starting date or event: | 3 | Work package title | Security & Trust Council | Activity type | COORD | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 0,5 | 9,5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | ― Defining the security policy and means of the platform ― Defining the trustworthiness policy and means to achieve it ― Determining best practises for the global design concerning security and trust ― Supervising and advising in the design of the different modules on security and trust concerns ― Assessing the security and trust of the modules and the launched platform as a whole ― Determining means for monitoring security and trust |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Lead participant: UAE Task 1.3.a: Norms and policy definition Partners involved: UAE: 2, AES: 2 - Specification of applicable standards on security and search for proactive methodologies to improve S&T while pursuing the most possible open character. - Determining access criteria according to general design policies and based on the easiness of use and trust. - Determining a plan and best practise guide concerning security and trust issues based upon an early identification of potential risks and adapted methodology to prevent them. - Defining assessment and testing procedures on security and trust. Task 1.3.b: Design advise Partners involved: ULE: 0.5, UAE: 4.5, AES: 4 - According to the assessment criteria the on-going modular developments will be assessed and correspondingly advised when some lacks regarding security or trustworthiness. - Collection of design advice for further guidance and reviewing of the best practises guide. Task 1.3.c: Assessment (experts & monitoring) Partners involved: UAE: 3, AES: 3 - After trial executions along a period in which the social community has chance to fully respond, a global assessment will be done for reviewing the best practises and design guide. - Final assessment of the infrastructure as a whole and the specific modules and evaluation report concerning the achievement of the pursued goals. - Providing an analysis of detected risks and guidelines for future work in order to improve S&T. - Final review of the best practises manual for public delivering. |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.3.a | Security & Trust (S&T)- Plan and Best Practises Guide (ST-G) | 10 | D1.3.b | 1st S&T Design recommendations minutes report | 13 | D1.3.c | 1st S&T Assessment Report and ST-G review | 19 | D1.3.d | 2nd S&T Design recommendations minutes report | 25 | D1.3.e | Final S&T Assessment Report (Recommendations for further developments) | 34 | | | | |
Table 1.4 c-4 Work package no. | 1.4 | Starting date or event: | 3 | Work package title | Usability and user experience Council | Activity type | COORD | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6,5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,5 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | The objective of this work package is to stipulate design guidelines, oversee implementation and carried out assessment and testing of all the technological solutions for assuring innovative and state of the art user-centered interfaces for the whole infrastructure, including internal tools for content management and public accessibility, intended for sharing, communicating and disseminating knowledge through collaborative technological platforms. |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Lead participant: AAU Task 1.4.a: Norms and policy definition Partners involved: UAE: 1, AAU: 2, UB: 0.5, SIS: 0.5 ― Defining the usability policy and best practises guidelines aimed at achieving a real usefulness of the infrastructure in the scientific work, cooperative design, education and generic user interaction and innovative user-center interfaces for the DomusBITae system ― Defining testing procedures on usability and based on user experience. ― Mid-term review of these guidelines after trial assessments. Task 1.4.b: Design advise Partners involved: UAE: 2, HM: 2, AAU: 3, UB: 1, SIS: 1 ― Oversee implementation under the stipulated design guidelines ― Provide specific design advise regarding supervision of the on-going solution ― Collection of design advice for further guidance and further reviewing of the best practises guide Task 1.4.c: Assessment Partners involved: UAE: 2, HM: 1, AAU: 1.5, UB: 0.5, SIS: 1 - After trial executions along a period in which the social community has chance to fully respond, a global assessment will be done for reviewing the best practises and design guide. - Final assessment of the infrastructure as a whole and the specific modules and evaluation report concerning the achievement of the pursued goals regarding users satisfaction. - Providing guidelines for future work and a final review of the best practises manual for public delivering. |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.4.a | Usability & User experience – Plan and Best Practises Guide (U-G) | 10 | D1.4.b | 1st Usability Design recommendations minutes report | 13 | D1.4.c | 1st Usability Assessment Report & U-G review | 19 | D1.4.d | 2nd Usability Design recommendations minutes report | 25 | D1.4.e | Final Usability Assessment Report (Recommendations for further developments) | 34 | | | | |
Table 1.4c-5 Work package no. | 1.5 | Starting date or event: | 3 | Work package title | Interoperability and integration Council | Activity type | COORD | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 0 | 3 | 8,5 | 1,5 | 0,5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,5 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | The objective of this council is to search and determine best practises and design guidance as well as assessment criteria on the interoperability as a key issue to the effective integration of the infrastructure (understanding for interoperability the capability to exchange and use information between systems, subsystems and users, enabling a fruitful and effective interaction). By that means on the subsystems can interweave for meeting knowledge oriented needs, like searches, connecting with appropriated groups, scientist, and digital assets. The meta-data structure will be determined for the design of all modules. Special care will be taken in the inter-linguistic relations and interdisciplinarity of the intended infrastructure. |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Lead participant: UC3 Interoperability best practises will be determined and assessed according to an early definition of the semantic meta-structure of the system and an ongoing semantic network for enabling the desired integration of the modules. The interoperability will be pursued within the domusBITae system and with other systems for an automatic interaction. In sum, the interoperability will unless other means are further determined by: - Employment of public metadata vocabularies - Formalization of documents in RDF language - Implementation of standards enabling accessibility - Persistent URIs - A light ontology to cope with the multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches to information The interoperability assets will be close related to the BITrum glossary module, since it will state the semantic network, alignments and relevance weighting for providing linkage to contents and participants, whereas the interdisciplinary glossary will benefit the interaction with the researcher, and learner providing the clarification and disambiguation of term usage among domains and languages not covered by the automated semantic network. The role of the semioticians, linguists and translators from different languages and research domains will pursue a further integration with intercultural and interdisciplinary users. Task 1.5.a: Norms and policy definition Partners involved: UAE: 0.5, UC3: 2, CBS: 0.5, FUN: 0.5, UB: 0.5 - Definition of general guides for the development of the modules using a determined metadata structure, protocols and archiving policy for the effective deployment of interoperability means. - Definition of assessment methods for evaluating the interoperability achievements. - Definition of user test requirements for early evaluation and analysis of the interoperability with target users. Task 1.5.b: Design advise Partners involved: UAE: 1, UC3: 4, CBS: 1, HN:0.5, FUN: 0.5, UB: 1, SIS: 1 - Oversee implementation under the stipulated design guidelines - Design advice by assessment of the on-going developments. Task 1.5.c: Assessment Partners involved: UAE: 1.5, UC3: 2.5, FUN: 1, UB: 0.5, SIS: 0.5 - After trial executions along a period of usage and community response, a global assessment will be done for reviewing the best practises and design guide. - Final assessment of the infrastructure as a whole and the specific modules and evaluation report concerning the achievement of the pursued goals regarding interoperability achievements within the system, with the user community (regarding their semantic and knowledge expectancies) and with other systems. - Providing guidelines for future work and a final review of the best practises manual for public delivering. |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.5.a | Interoperability - Plan and Best Practises Guide (IO-G) | 10 | D1.5.b | 1st Interoperability Design recommendations minutes report | 13 | D1.5.c | 1st Interoperability Assessment Report & IO-G review | 19 | D1.5.d | 2nd Interoperability Design recommendations minutes report | 25 | D1.5.e | Final Interoperability Assessment Report (Recommendations for further developments) | 34 | | | | |
Table 1.4 c-6 Work package no. | 1.6 | Starting date or event: | 1 | Work package title | Dissemination & community Management | Activity type | COORD | Partic. No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Partic. Short name | ULE | UAE | UC3 | CBS | HM | FUN | AAU | TUW | UB | UTI | AES | CCO | SIS | SII | Person-months | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2,5 | 2,5 | 3 | 1,5 | 1,5 | 1,5 | 2,5 | 1,5 | 3 | 3 | 1,5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Objectives | ― Disseminate the domusBITae platform and the obtained results among the public raising awareness of the necessity to reduce distances among sciences and cultures in order to achieve a better understanding of information and cope with the challenges of the information society ― Engage scientific communities into the system as external trials users ― Ensure collaboration of academic, scientific and industrial stakeholders to the project objectives and final results ― Ensure further maintenance by academic, scientific and industrial stakeholders warranting the open access and free usage ― Work closely with other projects under the e-Infrastructures EC projects taking part in the ESFRI forum and the eIRG aiming at sharing best practises, results and avoiding effort duplications. |
Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners | Lead participant: ULE Task 1.6.a: Dissemination and Communication Means (policy, mechanism deployment, assessment criteria) Partners involved: ULE: 2, UAE: 2,UC3: 2, CBS: 0,5, HM: 1, FUN: 2, AAU: 1, TUW: 0.5, UB: 2, UTI: 0.5, AES: 0.5, CCO: 0.5, SIS: 1, SII: 0.5 Task 1.6.b: Dissemination activity & Community management Partners involved: ULE: 3, UAE: 1.5, UC3: 1, CBS: 1, HM: 1.5, FUN: 1.5, AAU: 1, TUW: 1, UB: 1, UTI: 1.5, AES: 1, CCO: 2, SIS: 2, SII: 1 Task 1.6.c: Impact Assessment Partners involved: ULE: 2, UAE: 1, UC3: 0.5, CBS: 0.5, HM: 0.5, FUN: 1, AAU: 0.5, TUW: 0.5, UB: 0.5, UTI: 1, AES: 0.5, CCO: 0.5, SIS: 0.5, SII: 0.5 |
Deliverables (brief description) | delivery month | D1.6.a | Promotional material: logo, website, templates | 2 | D1.6.b | Dissemination and Communication- Policy and Best Practises Guide | 4 | D1.6.c | 1st Dissemination Report | 12 | D1.6.d | Press Release announcing system launching and open call for participation | 14 | D1.6.e | 2nd Dissemination Report | 24 | D1.6.f | Final Dissemination Report | 36 | | | |
|
|