===================================== THE BERNSTEIN CONSORTIUM MEETING - AGENDA Paris, 28 Octobre 2005, 9am-5pm ===================================== Schedule 09:00-09:20 Project review 09:20-12:30 Scientific issues 12:30-13:30 Break (sandwiches served at the meeting place) 13:30-15:30 Managment issues 15:30-17:00 Other issues Agenda ===================================== REVIEW ===================================== - Participants presentation - Review of project goals - Review of ECP objectives and limitations ===================================== SCIENTIFIC ===================================== WP1 - Integration -------------------------------------------------------- - Collaboration - How is collaboration between Integration Conceptor (Graz?), Integration Implementor (Stuttgart) and Resource Providers (partners with databases and tools) going to take place? Data enlargment - How much new data would be acceptable by the EU? Candidates are: Rembrandt collection Quantity: circa 300 paper sheets Owner: British Library and the Library of the Congress Status: reproduced Technique: X-ray? Source: drawing sheets Period: XVIIth c. Area: Low Countries Pro: Attractive artist Con: - PP in charge: Newcastle IPCL collection Quantity: ? Owner: Instituto per la Patologia del Libro, Rome Status: digitized Technique: X-ray? Source: Printed books Period: Rennaissance Area: Italy Pro: ? Con: ? PP in charge: Paris IFRI collection Quantity: c. 60 Owner: Institut francais de recherche en Iran, Teheran Status: on-line database (http://web.mit.edu/atanasiu/www/KABIKADJ/INDEX.HTM) Technique: backlight Source: Manuscripts Period: XVIIth-XIXth c. Area: Iran Pro: Only European export paper collection available Con: - PP in charge: Paris Russian collections Quantity: c. 1000-2000 Owner: State Museum, Moscow & Russian Academy, St. Petersburg Status: digitized Techinque: various Source: Manuscripts, Printed books Period: ? Area: Russia Pro: would be the first Russian paper collections to go on-line Con: ? Standards - Besides standards for describing watermarks, also standards to describe the other features of papers have to be discussed. This is necessary for the interoperability of measurement, search and identiifcation tools. WP3 - Tools -------------------------------------------------------- Identification - Is it acceptable to create this new tool? - If not, then we loos a major application of our project. - If yes, is it really possible in the current state of our data and tools to perform identification, even on a very limited scale? - What effort would it need to produce an identification tool? What are the components, requirements and budget necessary? WP4 - Contexts -------------------------------------------------------- Bibliography - In ECP we can't just bring the Leipzig bibliography on-line, we need to integrate it into the integrated workspace. But how? - What are the benefits of the Bibliography for scientists since not all of it will be put on the internet? WILC linking - Is linking of WILC to the Gesamtverzeichniss feasable/needed? WP5 - Validation -------------------------------------------------------- Validation - Agree on cycles of validations (assesment/feed-back). - Mechansism for external validation. Evaluation - Repport on the impact of the project (assesment of the state of the field at the project's onset and at its end). WP6 - Dissemination -------------------------------------------------------- - There is a lot of activity in this WP - is it ok? - International conferences on paper expertise as part of our general meeting days (4 times?) - itinerant exhibition? (yes, but take care not to be outside the 5.1.1 call, i.e. in the network and demonstartion call) ===================================== MANAGMENT ===================================== - comments on the managment structure and mechanisms outlined in the proposal Call issues -------------------------------------------------------- - how to strengthen our position on the multilanguage and multicultural aspects of our project? (remeber, every European project can argue that multilangue access is needed, but some projects critically depend on translation, such as a project on literature about the response to industrialization in the XIXth c. across Europe, where it is clear that translation is an indispensable ingredient if researches should be able to access Estonian texts as well as Catalan - and our project on paper depends only marginaly on multilingualism). - proposed languages for the standards, integrated workspace, the documentation: dutch, english, french, german, italian, russian. / other possibilities: spanish, arabic, chinese, japanaese Administrative -------------------------------------------------------- - start date of project: 1 September 2006 (end: 31 Mars 2009) (if project is accepted, the contract signing is expected to be in June/July 2006, placing holydays monthes at the begining of the project if it would start right away after the signature and low activity period of almost 5 month at the end) - expectations from the partners about the position of secretary-general, serving as day to day administrative personel - designate an administrative contact person for each partner Decission making -------------------------------------------------------- - Voting proceedures (how many votes per partner? 1/partner?) - Steering commitee - Designate contact person for each partner for current issues Intellectual propriety rights -------------------------------------------------------- - Copyright status of data and software produced, owned or made available through the project. Budget -------------------------------------------------------- - After the task distirbution is agreed, the budget should be discussed. - Is the following the case for any of the partners? Form B, 11.1: Details on contributions by other organisations: / Details on direct revenue/receipts generated by the project: Language -------------------------------------------------------- - Would our British partners agree to take charge of "brushing up" important documents (such as proposals, repports...)? - For some partners some translation mechanism should be agreed upon. Website -------------------------------------------------------- - Set-up and design should be left to the coordinator, who is also in charge of the technical maintanance of the website. - WPs and PPs can produce their own folders, that they manage independently. - what about video-teleconferencing? could besometimes better than email and phone. - is SFTP ok? should we use other systems, such as PLONE, BSCW, Hyperware, Microsoft NetMeeting? Plone http://plone.org/ BSCW http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/about.index Hyperware http://www.hyperwave.com/e/ MS Netmeeting Word > Help: "netmeeting" (see "whiteboard" too) Index http://thinkofit.com/webconf/