WPs - Networking

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.aAdministrative 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.bCoordination 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.aUsers’ 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.bGlobal 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.cMonitoring

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.aNorms 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.bDesign 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.cAssessment (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.aNorms 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.bDesign 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.cAssessment

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.aNorms 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.bDesign 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.cAssessment

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.aDissemination 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.bDissemination 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.cImpact 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


Comments