DESIRE: Peer Review Report

Project Number:	RE 4004 (RE)
Project Title:	DESIRE II - Development of a European Service for Information on Research and Education II
Deliverable Number:	D5.1
Deliverable Title:	Workshop Materials - Building national and large-scale Internet information gateways
Deliverable Type:	PU
Deliverable Kind:	RE
Principal Reviewer:	Name	17 of the 27 participants at the workshop
	Address	National libraries/librarians within Europe (see workbook/Web site)
	E-Mail
	Telephone
	Fax
	Credentials	National libraries/librarians within Europe
Other Reviewers:
Summary:	Relevant (ratings out of 5)		4.6
	State-of-Art		4.5
	Meets Objectives		4.4
	Clarity		4.2
	Value to Users		4.5
	Pre-conference organisation		4.7
	Conference organisation		4.5
	Workshop materials		4.4
Specific Criticisms	1	See general comments in body of document.

Comments from delegates

Which of the sessions did you find most useful? Note that a number of delegates indicated more than one most useful session:

65%	Setting up a gateway - practical issues
29.5%	Information Gateways and the international perspective
29.5%	Sustaining resource description
11.8%	What is an information gateway?
11.8%	Invited Speakers' Panel Session

Textual comments:

· There was nothing new to me; just that they were most relevant when you are already involved with SBIGs.

Least useful sessions:

23.5%	Information gateways in perspective
5.9%	Why set up large-scale and national gateways?
5.9%	Invited Speakers' Panel Session
5.9%	Setting up a gateway - practical issues

Textual comments:

· Practical issues session was familiar, overlong and a bit repetitive.

Were there any topics that you think the workshop could have covered, which were not covered?

· A closer discussion of the requirements of technical skills - do we need to employ programmers, server experts, etc? Is ROADS a self-installing, no-maintenance system or ??? Questions like that are often neglected, but they are vital for project managers trying to put together a project plan.

· Integration of, eg gateway collections with library OPACs and other networked electronic resources such as CD-ROM, ISI.

What I liked MOST about the whole workshop

· Well organised, go quickly through most areas.

· One thorough introduction to what a gateway is and the discussions during breaks/dinner.

· Chance to meet others involved/interested in these developments.

· Its thorough coverage and informative moments.

· Opportunity to learn.

· The practical aspects - how to set up a service.

· The opportunity to make face-to-face contact with the DESIRE team.

· Ideas on practical issues. Learning how others tackle their situations.

· Nice atmosphere, good overview and elaboration of crucial points.

· The intention to work together.

· Opportunity to build up personal contacts.

· All the very clear presentations.

What I liked LEAST about the whole workshop

· Too much redundancy - there would have been room for more topics if the description of the idea of a gateway had not been repeated several times. One of the presentations on tools was so confusing and the subject so important - somebody should have spent a little extra time on that.

· The room was very formal and airless.

· Too little time for discussions.

· Room arrangements too cramped and sometimes difficult to concentrate because I was uncomfortable.

· Sometimes redundant information - some speakers were hard to understand.

· Some of the topics were redundant.

How could we have improved this workshop for you?

· Could have added half a day to the subject: what is the minimum of information and technicalities required if we are going to cooperate.

· Added more topics, especially on technical matters explained on a beginner's level.

· Different timetable either to facilitate travel on Tuesday or benefit from travel on Monday.

· Devote more time for led but open discussions.

· Print in workbook too small; screen display not always easy to read; online demos not clearly visible, almost impossible to follow what was going on.

· Some of the speakers spoke too fast and not loud enough.

Did the workshop meet your expectations?

· For me it is not enough to get the national libraries committed to SBIGs. I want them to cooperate in practice.

Do you plan to use any of the information you have been given at this workshop?

· Just a general background. Nothing specific.

· I was mainly confirmed in what I am doing at home is politically correct and still useful.

· Reassess scope criteria particularly in relation to geographical emphasis and available staff resource.

· Yes. I shall write about the workshop and publish it in printed and electronic format to share information and perhaps start up a team of subject gateway's creators.

· Yes, further considerable to setting up a gateway.

· Yes, especially on technical aspects.

· Yes (arguments for internal discussions, advise about updating, about description formats…, technical details about ROADS, email address, etc, etc).

· Yes.

· Yes. I will build my gateway project on the information I received at this workshop.

· Yes, I will be suggesting ROADS for our future Internet gateway.

· It gives a lot of checking points to give the thinking about these things a structure.

Do you plan to set up an information gateway?

· We are part of a new gateway for research libraries in Denmark.

· You have the URL already.

· Already building Natural Selection gateway as part of BIOME.

· Pathistica subject gateway, LIS subject gateway

· Probably.

· Yes, but it will be at the beginning of the next century

· Yes - Les Signets

· Yes in the future

· Yes. I expect to cooperate with the SOSIG team to build a Social Science gateway.

· Yes, but it will be in the future.

· Yes. A subject gateway with subjects represented in our future research library (Helvetica).

· Yes, depends on personnel resources available.

· Not in the next 12 months.

· Probably not, but it was a help for the work in the REYNARD project.

Further comments and suggestions

· The 'setting up a gateway' should have been held the first day, early in the programme. Maybe you should have asked all participants in advance to prepare a 2-minute presentation instead of letting us improvise the way we did during the plenary on the second day. But all in all, I was very satisfied and everybody was so positive and friendly that it encouraged making further contacts after the workshop.

· Thank you! Please organise further briefings on what's going on in this field.

· Thank you to the organisers.