register Homepage

ECLAP Verification Meeting, January 2011

Agenda of the meeting
12-13-14 January 2011, Florence, Italy
Location: Faculty of Engineering, University of Florence,
Via S. Marta 3, BUS: number 4 from the Railway station

See ECLAP Support Page for the documents
General Meeting Objectives
  • General Verification and assessment of the project status
  • Review of the requirements table and planned goals  
  • Presentation of WG Guidelines
  • Presentation of the UG Guidelines
  • Presentation of Assessment Model
  • Closure of DE3.1, and DE4.1
  • Working group set up and plan
  • Dissemination report and plan
  • General Plan for the next months
  • Project decision board

Agenda of the 12th
  • 10:00--early premeeting for WG activities
  • 12:00—Welcome with the presentation of all people
  • 12:10— Agenda for the days, DSI, P. Nesi
  • 13:30—lunch
  • 14:30— ECLAP project, DSI, P. Nesi
    • Making the point in which we are with respect to the DOW
    • Work done since July 2010 to now
    • Objectives of the meeting
    • General planned work
    • Technical Planned work for the next months
  • 15:30—ECLAP overview of services, DSI, P. Nesi
  • 16:45—coffee break
  • 17:15— ECLAP Assessment model, NTUA, work done and planned
  • 17:45— WG Guidelines, Uniroma, R. Santucci, work done, report only
  • 18:30— User Group management, FRD, E. Bellini, work done, report only
  • 19:00— closure of the day

Agenda of the 13th
  • 09:00—  Planed Work on WP5 and UG, Uniroma, Raffaella Santucci; FRD, Emanuele Belllini
    • Planned Workshops, Goals of the workshop
    • proposing  identified programs of the workshops
    • proposing  identified location of the workshops
    • Web pages on the portal for the Working Groups
    • Web pages of Content Partners
  • 10:30 – coffee break
  • 11:00 – WP3: ECLAP Social Service Portal, DSI
    • ECLAP main tools and architecture, P. Nesi, P. Bellini
    • Graphic design of the Portal, DSI, P. Nesi
    • Content aggregation tools and solutions, DSI, Marco Serena
    • Folksonomy and taxonomy tools, BnG: Jaap, DSI M. Paolucci
  • 13:00 – lunch
  • 14:00 – WP3/WP4: ECLAP Social Service Portal and content
  • 16:00 – coffee break
  • 16:30 –  IPR Strategy and tools in ECLAP
    • How to work with IPR issues, DSI, M. Paolucci; N. Mitolo
  • 18:00--WG discussions on parallel sections
  • 19:00— closure of the day

Agenda of the 14th
  • 09:00 – WP7: Dissemination, BELLONE, Celyne Van Corven
    • Dissemination report, work done
    • Dissemination plan, work to be done
    • how to host events on the portal
  • 10:30 – coffee break
  • 11:00 – Project Decision Board 1/3
  • 12:00-- Project Decision Board 2/3
    • 15 minutes of WP5 about WG reporting, Raffaella Santucci
    • See below
  • 13:00 – lunch
  • 14:00 – Project Decision Board 3/3
    • See below
  • 16:00 – closure of the meeting

Project Decision Board, DSI, P. Nesi
  • Europeana
  • Affiliation agreement, DSI
  • Amendment, DSI
  • Decisions to be taken at the meeting
  • Planning Next Activities
    • WP1: Management, Administrative, DSI
    • WP3: ECLAP Social Service Portal, DSI
    • WP4: Content, NTUA
    • WP6: ECLAP Running Solution, DSI
    • WP5: Networking, UNIROMA
    • User Group, FRD 
    • WP7: Dissemination, BELLONE
  • Dates and locations of next meetings
  • Assessment of the Administrative staff: data collection status, other problems, By Simonetta,
  • Partner & flags management
  • Summary of Assignments of Commitments from ACTION LIST
Your rating: None
What are the new supposed deadlines? I hear that Peterson College is organizing a new even this fall and the registration has started already.
Rory - essay writer from Washington.
Dear Paolo, and ALL partners,

This response to Lotte's request seems unreasonable, dysfunctional considered Lotte’s commitment and the work she has done in all deliverables so far. It’s just unfair.

Since we can look back on a kick off meeting filled with 300 powerpoint slides it is only RIGHT and REASONABLE that Lotte attempts to simplify the agenda and find more space for input from other partners. We cannot afford another 3-day meeting with DSI (Paolo) covering 50% of speaking time, with 90% of the attendees listening and looking at ‘what has been done –has to be done’ slides. I kindly ask you to reconsider your previous response and start considering the elaboration of the agenda as the result of a democratic process and commitments. One solution for gaining time: prepare a word document to read in the airplane with info on what has been achieved, delivered, and the issues we have to solve before the next deliverables. This is just common management practise.

Three questions:
Who is the independent chairman of the meeting?
In what forum can we determine on which issues will be voted.

Two requests:

1 A) Would you please be so kind to open the January meeting with a simple mission statement from DSI’s perspective. What would you like to achieve, why are we the necessary sparring partners. What will ECLAP deliver at 2013 and how do you think it will survive once the project is finished. 1 B) Why are we a best practice network since you’ve stated that it is not a library nor a portal? What does this statement in a previous email mean?

2)Since you’ve agreed to meet, when will it be possible (preferably before 12 January) to meet in Holland to discuss serious issues?

Two technical request:

1) Place the questions and answers in the right order. The usual way a forum works: the topics above (in a list), and the comments and answers (attached) below it. And do NOT, like in a blog, place the most recent submission first, and the original message below. In the present situation here my, or in a short while your, comments are on top, while Lotte started the subject.
2) Please test, research and implement the Drupal Basecamp clone as management/collaboration tool that people are willing to use. We prefer existing tools that have proved their status. Like LinkedIn and Basecamp. The existing Basecamp look alike in Drupall can be found at

All the best, Erik

ps: why do I have to hmtl code this document twice to format it? bulleted lists disappear, breaks dissappear. Look and feel, functionality??? Where's the editor with formatting tools?
The purpose of the meeting is verification and not working on working groups. This kind of comments should be avoided since we need to tecnical get the point, making the status, presenting the context, passed DE that have not been digested and going ahead. The meeting is for presenting the technical platform and the proposed implrementation of DE3.1 and DE4.1. So that IT IS TOTALLY natural to see in this context a lot of technical intervention from DSI side, we have the largest percentage on that. This does not means that we are monopolising, it is our duty to present the proposed work to all. Since we have this kind of comments, as a coordinator I all noticed that getting again the point about what is ECLAP is really needed.
I fully support you in your duty to present the proposed work to all, and I fully support Lotte in her attempts to improve the agenda. 3 days should be enough. I rest my case.

-- it is not true that all people knows the issues, since many people are posing the same questions to me many many times, you probably know all but others not, this is evident. We have to keep ALL the consortium partners aligned and thus we have to reshape the issues. I know my job of coordinator, sorry!!! :-)
-- what you are proposing it is not good since we need to take time and see the presented status of the project including guidelines for WG and UG, before starting to work on WK. Most of partners have not accessed to them. They should work on those rules, and never digested and heard !!!! Moreover, People working on WG need to be aware about what we are planning to do with DE3.1 and DE4.1 othervise they should talk into WGs fully out of context. So that yous proposal is not linear. The story you are proposing is not linear. I am following a strictly consecutive approach to make it easy for all to follow and GROW in awarness ;-) .
-- regarding IPR wizard, the coordination has been done on the basis of the work done in the requirements, at the last florence meeting and in de3.1 and in the requirements. So that, They are going to present a solution to the posed requirements and DE3.1 infrastructure. Please follow them, now it is their turn to draw and your turn to follow. Then in M11-M12 a new round of requirements will start, etc.. So as you can see a review of the whole project mechanism are needed to refine the view :-)
I explained the refinement process in place at the kickoff and also at the last meeting. So that we need to revise it again and again to avoid mistake and strange questions on the mailing list.
-- I am only **presenting** the graphic (I hope to see you there as the other) since we are responsible for the DE3.1 section on graphic design of the portal, together with AXMEDIATECH. Moreover we are also resposible of the contract with Guido. We will have the time to collaborate at the meeting and before hoping to have from Guido the proposal in advance.
I know that it is a very important issue, but we cannot accept to move this activity to another partner, let the people working on it as planned :-), and contribute on improving the proposals.....
On this regard, I cannot move the presentation in another place since the story would not be linear.
-- for the PDB the list will be clear day my day, I am not a magician.... Moreover, more details will be communicated when available for sure.

Dear Paolo,

- I think that we can shorten the “Agenda for the day” (partners will study the agenda beforehand I assume) and “ECLAP overview of services” on day 1. Otherwise we run the risk of going through too many slides with information that is either already known or that partners can read in advance.

- It would make more sense to me if the WG sessions on day 2 are planned back-to-back. So 9:00 Planned work on WP5, 10:30 break, 11:00 WG parallel sessions. It is crucial to get input by partners on the WGs, so we make sure that the planning and activities are alligned with the wishes and interests of the consortium and especially the WPs dependent on the WG outcomes.

- Related, I would like to sync with Michela and Nicola, since they will hold a presentation on IPR issues and I want to coordinate their points with those presented in the WG-B session.

- Now, “Graphic design of the Portal” will be presented by you, whereas I really think this is the crucial issue for many partners. That’s why I suggested to prepare this presentation in collaboration with Guido, B&G, BELLONE and UVA. Maybe that was your plan too, but I that does not become clear from the agenda. Please let us know how you plan on preparing for this and how everyone can contribute.

- Please add the list of points to be decided on in the PDB to the overview for clarity.

- Will there still be a social dinner on day 2? :-)