D1_1

DESIRE: Project Deliverable
Project Number:	RE 4004 (RE)
Project Title:	DESIRE II - Development of a European Service for Information on Research and Education II
Deliverable Number:	D1.1
Deliverable Title:	Peer Review Plan
Deliverable Type:	PU
Deliverable Kind:	RE
Principal Author:	Name	Tracey Hooper
	Address	Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol, 8-10 Berkeley Square, Bristol, BS8 1HH, UK
	E-Mail	t.a.hooper@bristol.ac.uk
	Telephone	+44 (0) 117 928 7197
	Fax	+44 (0) 117 928 7112
Other Authors:
Deliverable URL(s):	http://137.222.16.16/deliverables/d1.1/ (from Oct 15^th 1998)
Abstract:	This report details initial plans within the DESIRE II project for the review of project deliverables. In most cases peer reviewers have been confirmed though in others the "type" of person has been identified rather than individual names. This has been necessary due to the considerable time-lag between this report and the actual peer review process for a number of deliverables. From initial discussions within the project it seems likely that one of the deliverables, namely D3.3, will be split into 2 parts. It is anticipated that we will ask the Commission to upgrade two internal project reports into deliverables. A peer review plan has been supplied for this (D3.3c.2).
Keywords:	deliverable, peer review, plan

PART II: Executive Summary

This report details initial plans within the DESIRE II project for the review of project deliverables. In most cases peer reviewers have been identified and confirmed though in others the "type" of person has been identified rather than individuals. This has been necessary due to the considerable time-lag between this report and the actual peer review process for a number of the project’s deliverables.

A variety of different methods have been chosen for the peer review - this reflects the nature of the deliverable itself. A number of leading experts in the metadata field have been obtained to peer review a number of deliverables - their approval will lend considerable weight to the project.

From initial discussions within the project it seems likely that one of the deliverables, D3.3, will be split into 2 parts. It is anticipated that we will ask the Commission to upgrade two internal project reports into project deliverables. A peer review plan has been supplied for one of the internal reports we wish to upgrade (D3.3c.2), discussions within the project are still in progress for the other internal report to be upgraded.

PART III: Description

Deliverable ID	D3.1
Deliverable Name	Recommendations on implementation of quality ratings in an RDF environment
Deliverable Due by	Month 6 (December 1998)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, A1.1, C5
Intended audience	The deliverable will be mainly aimed at those involved in developing and building quality rating systems.
Time required for Peer Review	Two weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1. Mark Field - Library Association, UK . Professional Adviser, Special Libraries and Information Services, The Library Association. Member of the London Quality Core Group that is looking at controlled vocabularies for quality selection on the Internet. 2 Chris Armstrong - Centre for Information Quality, UK (unconfirmed). Manager of the Centre for Information Quality Management. The Centre was set up as act as a clearing house to which database users may report problems relating to the quality of any aspect of a database being used. This work has extended to look at the problems of networked information.
Process to be followed	Report Reading

Deliverable ID	D4.1
Deliverable Name	Review of new caching technology and opportunities
Deliverable Due by	Month 7 (January 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C2, C4
Intended audience	Web cache managers. System managers planning a web cache service. To some extent managers planning web cache strategies.
Time required for Peer Review	4 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1 Martin Hamilton, Loughborough University, UK . Martin works on JANET webcache, one of the largest and most established web cache systems in Europe. Developer with experience from various Internet protocols, operational experience 2. Jens S. Voeckler, DFN cache service (unconfirmed) 3. Christian Grimm, DFN cache service (unconfirmed)
Process to be followed	Read report and give feedback and comments.

Deliverable ID	D3.2
Deliverable Name	Prototype quality-ratings service
Deliverable Due by	Month 12 (July 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, C5
Intended audience	Digital library and resource discovery specialists
Time required for Peer Review	2 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	R.V. Guha, Netscape Communications. RDF/Metadata lead at Netscape. Expert in use of metadata and labelling in browsing tools, particularly regarding "description bureau" services. . Eric Miller, OCLC, Dublin, Ohio, USA. Metadata expert (Dublin Core, RDF). Chair, W3C RDF Model and Syntax Working Group. . 3. David Kay, Strategic Development Director of Fretwell-Downing Informatics Ltd, supplier of distributed information management solutions. He participates in the Management Boards of a number of European and UK RTD projects (PRIDE, GAIA, Agora, eLib Clumps) as well as working directly with key clients (including British Library, UK Public Record Office, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Experience in resource discovery systems. .
Process to be followed	Reading Reports; possible online walk-through and two-way discussion about the appropriateness of approach

Deliverable ID	D3.3
Deliverable Name	Distributed Indexing protocol toolkit
Deliverable Due by	Month 13 (August 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, C2, C3
Intended audience	Digital library and resource discovery specialists
Time required for Peer Review	2 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	Martin Hamilton, Loughborough, UK. Resource discovery / standards expert. Eliot Christian. Co-ordinator of GILS and ASF Projects (US-based related activity to DESIRE), US Geological Survey, 802 National Center, Reston VA. Dr Matti Hamalainen, Principal Lecturer, Information Technology, ESPOO-VANTAA Institute of Technology, Finland. Metadata/Web standard expert. Dave Beckett, Kent University, UK . Metadata and distributed web indexing expert. Coordinates the UK hierachical Academic Directory web index, participant in TF-CHIC project. 5. R.V. Guha, Netscape Communications. RDF/Metadata lead at Netscape. . Expert in use of metadata and labelling in browsing tools, particularly regarding "description bureau" services.
Process to be followed	Reading reports, possible online walk-through and two-way discussion about the appropriateness of approach.

Deliverable ID	D3.3c2
Deliverable Name	LDAP distributed indexing service (demonstrator)
Deliverable Due by	Month 18 (December 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C2, A2.1, S2.1
Intended audience	‘white-pages’ administrators
Time required for Peer Review	two weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1. Roland Hedberg, UMDAC (Umeå University Computing Centre), Sweden. Roland Hedberg is an international expert on the fields of directories, LDAP and indexing. He is co-author of the IETF Drafts on Common Index Protocol as well as of several directory related Requests for Comments (RFCs). 2. Thomas Lenggenhager, SWITCH. Thomas Lenggenhager is an internationally respected expert in LDAP and other directory related matters and co-authored several respective RFCs
Process to be followed	Report reading and experimenting with the demonstrator

Deliverable ID	D3.4
Deliverable Name	Information Gateways Handbook
Deliverable Due by	Month 15 (September 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	All Partners contributing
Intended audience	The handbook will be divided into three separate, although related, sections. Each section will be aimed at specific audiences. The general description of the handbook target audience would be "networked information specialists". The three distinct target audiences for the handbook are: 1. Policy/Decision makers and funding agencies/bodies A modified, overview version of the handbook will be targeted at the above group. This version of the handbook will be an overview of the whole information gateway area, with specific pointers to functionality, costings, policy implications and national/international strategy implications. 2. Project Managers responsible for information gateway implementations A detailed copy of the handbook will be addressed at the above group. It will be targeted as a working project management briefing document, designed to aid those responsible with the implementation and set up of an information gateway. 3. Technical Officers responsible for the functionality of an information gateway. This version of the handbook will be targeted at the above group. It will cover the technical areas that the DESIRE 2 project makes recommendations on for best practise and technical solutions for information gateway functionality.
Time required for Peer Review	3 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1. Sarah Ashton, Electronic Information Services Manager, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London, SE10 9NF, UK. Information specialist from an internationally recognised museum. Actively involved with the set up and development of a maritime focused information gateway (using ROADS). The National Maritime Museum information gateway is scheduled for public launch Easter 1999.
	2. Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen, Project manager, National Electronic Library in Finland, Helsinki University Library, P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23-25), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Project Manager of the National Electronic Library in Finland. Among other things she is working with the Finnish Virtual Library project which, with funding from the Finnish government, is in the process of setting up a series of ROADS-based subject gateways. These are part of a national information strategy. 3. We may also implement a draft online version and use it to collect comments and feedback online. This could either be part of the formal peer review process or it could be for our benefit only
Process to be followed	Detailed peer review of the complete handbook(s) (as outlined above). This will take the form of reading the handbook documentation, either in the online environment or in hard copy. 2. Section specific reviews from comments collected by visitors to the draft handbook available online via the DESIRE web site.

Deliverable ID	D5.1
Deliverable Name	Workshop materials
Deliverable Due by	Month 15 (September 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, S1.2, A1.1, C4, C5
Intended audience	The European and international library community
Time required for Peer Review	Collection of feedback and comments after each training event (one hour per event), plus analysis of this data (one day per workshop). Four workshops in total. Last workshop due January 2000, hence last review material due shortly after this.
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	Participants and attendees of training courses and seminars run within the DESIRE II project.
Brief CV	Dependent on the exact details of the training events attendees, likely to be leading library specialists from within Europe.
Process to be followed	Attendees of workshops and similar training events will be used to collect feedback and evaluate the materials used in the training events. Standard evaluation forms and question and answer sessions will be used in the review of the training events. Course materials (presentations, notes, etc) will be made available online. Comments and suggestions on the online materials will be used as informal peer review data.

Deliverable ID	D5.2
Deliverable Name	Demonstrators of resource discovery technology and services
Deliverable Due by	Month 15 (September 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, S1.2, A1.1, C3, C5
Intended audience	The European and international library and research communities
Time required for Peer Review	2 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1. Jim Mullin or Lucy Smallwood, Glasgow University, UK. Both experienced evaluators of Internet applications. Prior work on evaluating EC funded projects (eg, DESIRE, SCIMITAR)
Process to be followed	Will largely comprise `walkthroughs' of prototypes and inspection of demonstration materials.

Deliverable ID	D3.5
Deliverable Name	Metadata registry framework
Deliverable Due by	Month 18 (December 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, C5, A1.1
Intended audience	The deliverable will benefit both metadata creators and metadata users. It is intended to enhance the standards making process by allowing information on metadata to be easily accessed and shared, both by humans and software agents
Time required for Peer Review	One month
Name of Peer Review er(s)	1. Renato Iannella, Principal Research Scientist, Leader, Resource Discovery Unit, Organisation: DSTC Pty Ltd, Research Data Network CRC, Level 7, Gehrmann Laboratories, The University of Queensland, QLD, 4072, AUSTRALIA. Renato Iannella is leader of the Resource Discovery Unit which investigates technologies used in the discovery, access, and retrieval of electronic resources on the Internet. Renato is an active contributor to World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C) working group on Metadata (the Resource Description Framework). Renato has authored many papers on Internet resource discovery architecture and issues - including Dublin Core, metadata registries and repositories, digital libraries, and persistent naming. 2. Thomas Baker, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O.Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathum Thani, 12120, Thailand. Thomas Baker is a member of the visiting faculty working on the Computer Science and Information Management Program in the School of Advanced Technologies at the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. He formerly worked for GMD (German National Research Centre for Information Technology) and has maintained his involvement in the work of the ERCIM (European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics) Digital Library group. He has been active in the Dublin Core workshops and has a particular interest in establishing registries for multilingual metadata 3. Ole Husby (Reserve), BIBSYS, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
Process to be followed	Reviewers will be asked to consider the registry framework from the point of view of different users (software agents and people). They will be asked to judge how the registry assists with tasks such as metadata creation, metadata conversion, as well as considering its role in promoting the use of metadata standards. In addition reviewers will be asked to evaluate guidelines for registry use.

Deliverable ID	D4.2
Deliverable Name	Report on cache mesh configuration
Deliverable Due by	Month 18 (December 1999)
Partners working on Deliverable	C2, C4
Intended audience	Web cache managers. System managers planning a web cache service. To some extent managers planning web cache strategies.
Time required for Peer Review	4 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1 Martin Hamilton, Loughborough University, UK 2. Jens S. Voeckler, DFN cache service (unconfirmed) 3. Christian Grimm, DFN cache service (unconfirmed)
Brief CV	1 Works on JANET webcache, one of the largest and most established web cache systems in Europe. Developer with experience from various Internet protocols, operational experience.
Process to be followed	Read report and give feedback and comments.

Deliverable ID	D3.6
Deliverable Name	Prototype service providing automatic classification of Engineering resources
Deliverable Due by	Month 20 (February 2000)
Partners working on Deliverable	C3
Intended audience	We are developing a pilot Internet service for academic users within the field of engineering. The service consists of the robot-generated All Engineering database which is derived from the quality-based service, EELS. In addition, cross-browsing with other Engineering and related services will be provided.
Time required for Peer Review	2 months
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	1. (individuals not yet confirmed) A specialist within the area of automatic classification who should also be a theorist or someone who is working with the presentation of a service using a classification scheme. 2. A Swedish specialist within the area of engineering, probably an information specialist and/or engineer.
Brief CV	1. A specialist within the area of automatic classification who is a theorist or is working with the presentation of a service using a classification scheme. It is important that our work is being evaluated by someone who has an overview of automatic classification and experience of projects of this kind. 2. A Swedish specialist within the area of engineering, probably an information specialist and/or engineer. It is also important that we are given the view from an "ordinary user", someone who has the subject knowledge and is able to evaluate the subject coverage.
Process to be followed	We expect our peer reviewers to evaluate our pilot service by using the test version with its classification and browsing options. They will then, with the help of an evaluation form, critique the service so that we may improve it.

Deliverable ID	D3.7
Deliverable Name	Upgraded harvesting system including multiple retrieval protocols
Deliverable Due by	Month 20 (February 2000)
Partners working on Deliverable	C1, C2, C3, C5
Intended audience	Digital library and resource discovery specialists
Time required for Peer Review	2 weeks
Name of Peer Reviewer(s)	Martin Hamilton, Loughborough, UK. Resource discovery / standards expert. Eliot Christian. Co-ordinator of GILS and ASF Projects (US-based related activity to DESIRE), US Geological Survey, 802 National Center, Reston VA. Dr Matti Hamalainen, Principal Lecturer, Information Technology, ESPOO-VANTAA Institute of Technology, Finland. Metadata/Web standard expert. 8. Dave Beckett, Kent University, UK . Metadata and distributed web indexing expert. Coordinates the UK hierachical Academic Directory web index, participant in TF-CHIC project.
Process to be followed	Reading reports, possible online walk-through and two-way discussion about the appropriateness of approach.