Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


  • 9:00h General presentation (120 minutes)
    • Who we are and Why Wf4Ever (José Manuel). This is not a typical preservation project, librarians 2.0 vs 1.0, etc. (20 min)
    • What and How (Carole) (see "Proposed structure for the how" below) (30 min)
    • Storyboard of the life of a scientist with Wf4Ever, with demos.We will use two beamers in case they are needed (40 min)

Break - 11:00h

  • 11:30h WP descriptions (15 minutes each+5 minutes questions, total 120 minutes)
    • WP5 (Pique)
    • WP2 (Sean)
    • WP3 (Oscar)
    • WP4 (Esteban/Jun)
    • WP1 (Raúl)
    • WP6 (Marco)

Lunch - 13:30h - 14:15h

  • Dissemination and exploitation (Dave, 20 minutes).
    • WP report (dissemination and exploitation strategy)
    • Activity summary (including community engagement with evangelizers, champions, etc.)
  • Administrative stuff (José Manuel, 15 minutes)


(Expected informal report time: 16:15h)

17:30 limit hour

Proposed structure for the how

The layer cake (from Carole)

What does it mean to preserve for an VO astronomer or biologist


  • Explain the bottom-up work done in terms of going from user requirements to technical requirements and preservation requirements (work done by Graham and not available in any deliverable)
  • From R's to I&A and preservation requirements (top-down)
  • Relationship between bottom-up and top-down approach (tool support)

RO model

Wf4Ever sandbox and its usefulness

Preservation methodology and strategy (in collaboration with Gema)

Summary from Lourdes

in the 1st two hours of the review  

the who, why and how (processes from requirements to implementation)  

would be presented, together with a storyboard (or "a Day in the  

Life") of Marco and Lourdes (presented by us). There we would also  

present our needs and vision, and how the project would+is answering  


Then the demos would precede the next about-two hours of presentations  

of the different WPs.

This risks to lead to repeating  user requirements, so the idea we had  

was to present those requirements by the users as part of our  

scientific stories, which can sound different than when compiled for  

each WP.

With this in mind, and going more specifically to your question, I  

dont think we said who would present the demos, but for me the answer  

depends critically on what will the demos be able to do exactly by  

that time.

If those are quite technical, in the sense that are not advanced  

enough to make an impression that is ready to use by us, scientists,  

then in my opinion they should be presented by the people who  

developed them. Otherwise we would risk

to enhance a distance between the needs we explained just before and  

what has been achieved.

However if we can really feel comfortable since they fulfill a part of  

our needs smoothly, then maybe would be good if we present them, with  

a huge smile in our faces, showing how happy this project makes  

Marco's and Lourdes's Life :)

  • No labels