...
| Note | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Attendees:Agenda: Adam, Vicente, Eli, Peter, Sigita, Kostas, Giannis, Nelson Recordings: http://emeeting.campusdomar.es/recording/a18776711ec9a1ba563a68ecde656eef Minutes: |
...
1) Status of the initial study, comments by GRNET, Wiki content, etc. V: the two documents are mainly definition of the service - lacks info what the system will look like and what features will it provide P: you don’t font the info needed for development? - clear concrete feature list to be determined during the face-to-face meeting E: the players of the project will be clearly explained in the next version of the document (to be produced in a few days) - looking for input, comments V: used to working on user driven basis - need to understand what the users are expecting; need to check user specifications (not to be fulfilled at first, but need to make sure that the architecture is ready to be updated for the later versions) K: […?] P: Kostas already working on aggregation of the metadata, had a look at the status and statistics - must be part of the document (screenshots, etc.) - to understand what features can be/cannot be implemented; architecture has to be flexible for when we are ready to implement more P: metadata - a must, paradata - might be left for a later stage K: issues with getting repositories to expose their paradata G: the only source of paradata - OER portal - maybe more in the future (if we want paradata, this has to be collected through the portal) V: the system currently only collects statistics, but ratings are easy to add G: better to have the users express this kind of requirement
G:should professors be the primary persona? maybe would be good to have one primary focus. P: two groups - end users and system admins, would not split those groups further E: risky to use interviews with professors - can focus on very narrow solutions, need large scale interviews, need to understand what is the state of the art in the world, find more common, most relevant features V: in any case, need to be connected to the prospective end-users - maybe a more complete survey is needed? P: continuous feedback necessary G: 20-30 interviews needed, but due to time limitations a prototype is needed - create the first version and then ask the users for feedback
G: made a new version of the study, no major changes only improvements and small additions E: integrated most of the comments, got comments from more professionals (mainly professors) - new version will be circulated within 10 days from now
ACTION: Giannis will send his updated version, Elis will prepare a draft for the face-to-face meeting
2) Web front-end development P: work for Vicente’s team will be defined during the face-to-face meeting V: need a definition asap - features and structure; also need a contract asap to define man power P: will start an e-mail dialogue with Giannis and others to give you more clarity before the face-to-face meeting and also start working on the paper work (contracts) now E: study document contains quite some information about the features etc. that can be used
P: the first version of this application profile should come from Giannis and Kostas G: we can provide first proposal for that, but its an exercise based on the real needs of the users V: use the user stories for the exercise P: plus personas described on the wiki
3) Face to face meeting preparation P: will prepare an agenda, full day meeting (9:00-17:00), send your arrival times, dinner possible the day before; will need to make decisions during this meeting, so good agenda and good preparation is crucial; booking hotels might be difficult - will prepare some recommendations
4) GN4 Task 3 update 5) Position paper of NRENs on Open Education
6) Priorities, deadlines, AoB G: Application profile deadline - before the face-to-face meeting? P: definitely - need to have the new versions of the study from everyone, will try to incorporate work from the wiki, and the application profile; will come up with a draft agenda as well and send it out for comments V: comments for the user stories are welcome - can be found on google.docs |
Anchor 6th 6th
| Note | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Attendees: Eli, Giannis, Kostas, Nelson, Peter, Sygita Agenda: 1) Contributions from IUCC and GRNET (Eli and Giannis) 2) Face to face meeting (Peter) 3) Aggregation engine update (Kostas) 4) GN4 SA8 propoal (Peter) 5) AoB
Minutes: 1) Contributions from IUCC and GRNET (Eli and Giannis)
Peter: happy with the content of the first draft - should be merged together to have one overview on the pilot
Eli: What we have in our doc now (welcomes feedback):
1. Metadata (what kind is needed, based on TERENA survey?) 2. Paradata (comments, user ratings, tags, etc.) 3. Connectivity (connected to libraries, other depositories outside of the main project) 4. Community (social media, creation of the community) Some of this will be done in the first phase, some in the second. Wide project, narrow core - unique project, dealing with a lot of issues on the European level Will be able to connect with many organisations outside of the core of this project Survey - very important, could be added as an annex or otherwise integrate. Document also sent to some OER experts
Peter: How can this be merged with the GRNET contribution?
Giannis: Comments on IUCC document: Good basis Would be good to provide the scope at the beginning of this merged document 3 main objectives:
For specifications: user stories, personas, mockups -> done already, so can easily be included Q: mandatory subject element - proposed or strongly recommended? we don’t have the subject element in many cases
Eli: all the second part of the doc is opened to discussion, mainly the metadata; some based on the survey; metadata field taken from one of the documents discussed in the past, but it has to be edited together need to understand the scale of the project and other relevant details Survey and previous discussion can/should be added to the document
Giannis: agree that it could be an appendix together with other long tables Q: Nothing mentioned about vocabularies?
Eli: if we use the (LOM?) then cannot use anything other this is something that needs to be discussed knows a specialist that can help
Giannis: should include a section about this in the document include some options that we have this part can be connected to the user stories and search and browser functionalities
Eli: vocabulary is relevant to how you add the materials to the system - technology issue, how to implement it, and the filters - might be the best if we can have as many as we can filters and vocabulary
Giannis: also the need to define mappings and to make transformations - need to decide whether it will be done automatically or manually - if manually someone has to take over this task
Eli: how many layers? 2 or 3? effective for the users
Giannis: this can simplify the work but the work of transportation will still be needed this has to be foreseen for the future
Peter: this issue can be left for the face to face meeting - agreement on this is needed
Giannis: we need to define the reference classification at this stage - for as many layers as needed
Peter: maybe skip for phase one, introduce later
Giannis: educational levels - could we also target vocational education?
Eli: should be open to everybody so we can say “higher education and any other users”
Peter: we narrowed down the scope - education in general, focused on higher education (primary focus of most of the NRENs), and focus on those, where the NRENs are active in - could be extended as a next step
Giannis: target audience - does not come up in the proposed schema
Elis: target audience is important to users in the higher education and outside; open to discussion and we have to see what you can implement having a target audience filter is important in the end of the process we might understand that there is no need for this we can take it out, but i believe that it is needed can be mandatory, optional or recommended Kostas: difference between location element and url element?
Eli: sometimes there is a difference [explains] - [url issue and other should be part of the face to face meeting]
Giannis: two cases - page where resources shown and where resource can be accessed at
Eli: has doubt about the LOM is it would be used, but those who will do the implementation should be part of the face to face meeting; need to agree on the mandatory
Giannis: maybe include a section with other options to LOM?
Kostas: Keeping the balance on the mandatory elements - nice to have as many elements as we need, but from aggregation side is makes it very strict, a lot of metadata will be dropped out, need to find a balance
Giannis: we will not be able to have more than 5-10 elements as mandatory
Eli: if we are leading the way, we need to make a standard; this needs to be discussed based on what the user will get - problem with global - almost no metadata and too much unnecessary material TERENA should recommend the standards at first maybe 5-10 mandatory fields, but recommend to have more
Giannis: agreed, but need to keep the balance
Giannis: what are the dates of the phase 1&2?
Peter: TERENA pilot - phase one is the one we can implement, the rest will be the “afterlife” of the pilot, in GN4
2) Face to face meeting (Peter) Peter: need a date Nelson: who will pay for this? Peter: preferably your org pays, but could be covered by TERENA (limited number of trips) Option 1: 25-26 September Option 2: after 7 October Will set up a doodle.
3) Aggregation engine update (Kostas)
http://terenaoer.grnet.gr/index.html#/dashboard/elasticsearch/Terena%20Aggregation http://terenaoer.grnet.gr/index.html#/dashboard/elasticsearch/Terena%20Metadata%20Analysis 4) GN4 SA8 propoal (Peter)
There are three tasks:
Task 3 is to take over the TERENA OER pilot results in April and develop that furter toward a production service of GÉANT. Kostas (GRNET) will be the task leader of that. 5) AoB Nelson produced a DRAFT plan for the promotioal activity of TERENA OER. The document will be circulated for further comments. Peter noted that the pr and marketing efforts must be aligned and incuded in the pilot early on. Nelson's contribution is very much appreciated and will be part of the initial study. |
...