Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Agenda

Coordinator: Oscar, Jits, Pique, Stian, Khalid, Raúl, Rafa, Dani, Jun, Graham, Guillermo

Apologies: Sean

Participants: Oscar

Call

Call will use iSOCO's WebEx

2011-06-22 10:00 BST/11:00 CEST

Minutes

Agenda Bashing

--

Next steps

We will analyze the next steps to be done in this task force, at two stages: before architecture meeting and before the next plenary meeting (early October)

Background: Sean, Jun and Oscar had a conversation two weeks ago to reflect on the next steps in this task force, after M6 deliverables. The main discussion was related to how to extract the first RO model from the requirements identified so far, which have to be harmonised in terms of roles, scenarios, users and technical requirements.

Short-term plans (before Architecture f2f meeting)

Khalid: Sean/stian/Jits have started the process to go from technical requirements to the model. Still to determine what is the best way to be doing so. We will start first with D2.1 - there are some technical reqs to the structure of ROs, and other are related to the functionality to be provided by ROs. We should focus first on the RO model. First step: divide requirements into structure-related and functionality-related requirements. Result of this process: Something like a UML model.

Graham: I'm planning to create "living requirements" document based on the biological research.  Hopefuly someone will do likewise for astro. One of the things we've nioticed is that some user requirements fell through the cracks between the technical work packages ... need holistic view to avoid this.

Jun: some of the technical requirements may be missed because there are some gaps between the technical requirements between different work packages. There is a need for consolidating the technical requirements from different workpackages (deliverables)

Oscar: I agree, we can start with D2.1, and then try to expand to cover the requirements from other deliverables, with the help of everybody

Graham: I think that if we have UML for RO package, we can suggest additions.  UML design is a reasonable fit for RDF implementation.

*Oscar: NEW ACTION: *Have an initial UML model for RO call in 2 weeks time (lead: UoM). Let's have a preliminary (minimal) model so that people can discuss and what are the requirements that are covered/missing, and then revisit the model. This can be pretty light-weight. Once the UML model is out, everybody has to contribute to analyse whether the requirements are covered.

Jun: WP4 will have a separate meeting to start from M6 WP4 tech requirements, pick a scenario, select a matching existing vocab, then try to model in RDF.  Use this to provide feedback into the ROdesign discussion. Start from one of the scenario (related to integrity and authencity), and use existing models. See how many scenario models

Oscar: UPM will start working on the vocabulary (ontology network) that can be used when publishing RO for example.

Medium-term plans (before plenary meeting in October)

Oscar: We should start thinking about what we should have before the plenary meeting (in 3 months), in terms of the ROs?

Graham: Have a preliminary implementation based on the initial model. Some early implementations based on a common model would be good!  (all subject to revision, of course)

Jun: try to avoid over-engineering. We will need to have a clear goal. Build prototype, not random, but capable of showing long-term impact. Concentrate on showing the value of the project. Build a lot on top of the myExperiment platform. Show the value of RO quickly by demonstrating.

Graham: First prototype was good for team building, working together ... also flushed out some important RO questions and requirements.

Oscar: what added value do we want to demonstrate in 3 months?  We need to ask the users to set priorities (don't forget about them, although also focus on the fact that we are trying to make good research on the bits as well). 

Pique: map the requirements identified from users to the RO model. However, we should prioritize requirements. thinking of prioritising the techical requirements to identify the most important ones and which we focus first

Graham: We need to work to build ongoing dialog with users; both as part of meetings like this, but also at a more personal level.

Oscar: NEW ACTION: for the next call, try also to think about the objectives that you want to achieve before the next plenary

Review open actions

--

Any other business

--

New actions

  • Have an initial UML model for RO call in 2 weeks time (lead: UoM). Let's have a preliminary (minimal) model so that people can discuss and what are the requirements that are covered/missing, and then revisit the model. This can be pretty light-weight. Once the UML model is out, everybody has to contribute to analyse whether the requirements are covered.
  • For the next call, try also to think about the objectives that you want to achieve before the next plenary

 

Next call: 2011-07-06 10:00 BST/11:00 CEST

  • No labels