Outline

2. WP5 – Knowledge Resource Sharing and ManagementKick-off Meeting – Valkenburg 8-9 December 2005Dr. Giancarlo BoGiunti Interactive Labs S.r.l.

3. Outline • Overall objectives (full project duration) • Objectives for the first 18 months • Description of activities • Timeline and partners involved • Brainstorming on … • Action list (a proposal) • Implementation of assessment protocol

4. Knowledge Resource Sharing & Management RTD • Expected results (at the end of the project) • A standards-based set of components supporting the creation, storage, use, reuse and exchange of knowledge resources • An embedding of these components in an environment of many thousands of knowledge resources available in a variety of repositories • A set of rating and recommending systems (based on collaborative filtering techniques) allowing users of knowledge resources to feedback information on their quality into the competence development network • A set of reward mechanisms able to be tuned to stimulate the following of policies • A (light-weight) profile of specifications and standards to facilitate Knowledge Resource Sharing & Management Very ambitious objectives!

5. WP5 Objectives 1/2 • Development of models & tools to stimulate the sharing and management of knowledge resources (learning objects, articles, books, software programs, informal messages, etc.) • Select and adapt existing tools to create a first version of knowledge resource sharing & management components, for integration in the TENCompetence System • Liaison with other initiatives in the area to circumvent cold-start problems, using open standards and protocols. Components should use the existing libraries of knowledge resources were possible. • Evaluate the usability of the developed components. • Create a roadmap for further research and development

6. WP5 Objectives 2/2 • Major foreseen services: • Creation of knowledge resources (KR) • Unique identification and indexing of KR through metadata (LOM, Dublin Core, etc.) • Packaging of KR according to IMS-CP and/or SCORM specifications) • Storage of KR in distributed and federated digital repositories • Search and retrieval of KR • Reuse and sharing of KR • Quality rating of KR

7. Description of Work • Task 1 – Select and adapt existing tools (18 months): • selection and adaptation of existing tools to create a first versions of knowledge resource sharing & management components • existing tools will be identified and integrated to support the requirements identified in this area in WP2 • components should support creation, storage, search, retrieval, packaging, reuse, support, sharing and quality rating of knowledge resources • scenarios and use cases will be developed for any necessary additional functionality • adaptation of the tools will be carried out using open standards based interfaces as part of task 4 in WP3 • Learn Exact (Giunti) will be adapted to function within the technical standards & architectural constraints as a test case to show how commercial products can be integrated

8. Description of Work • Task 2 – Liaise with other initiatives in the knowledge resource sharing & management area (18 months): • identification of candidate applications for integration through the review and analysis of initiatives in the European and worldwide knowledge resource, aiming at promoting: • the use of open standards and protocols • the use of existing libraries of knowledge resources were possible • inventory of initiatives in the European and worldwide knowledge resource sharing & management area • definition of plans for the technical integration using open standards • candidate initiatives already identified: ARIADNE, the Canadian LORNET and the American MERLOT initiative … but also many others …

9. Description of Work • Task 3 – Experiment and evaluate the usability (18 months): • set up and carry out experiments with knowledge resources using the infrastructure connected into a wider web of knowledge resources • particular attention to both scalability and usability issues • Task 4 – Research and develop models and methods (18 months): • stimulate and organize pro-active creation, storage, search, retrieval, packaging and quality rating of knowledge resources • identify gaps in our knowledge in this field and develop and contribute to the knowledge in the field (=> WP10) • define a roadmap for further research and development in the field to be used as input to cycle 2 plan development.

10. Planning (18 months) • First quarter (end February 2006): • T5.0 Management, review and assessment • T5.1 Select and adapt existing tools • T5.4 Research and develop models and methods

11. Milestones and Deliverables • M5.1: A first version of the knowledge resource sharing & management infrastructure (month 12) • M5.2: Report with a summary of WP outputs and a roadmap for knowledge resource sharing & management RTD (month 18) • D5.1 Report with summary of WP outputs and a roadmap for knowledge resource sharing & management RTD (month 18)

12. Partners in WP5 • Giunti Interactive Labs (WP leader) • Software de Base S.A. (Altran) • University of Hannover (L3S) • Institut Europeen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD) • Sofia University (SU) • Stichting SURF (SURF)

13. Brainstorming on … • Common understanding of the overall WP objectives • Previous experiences in the KR sharing and management field • Role and foreseen contributions of each partner in WP5 • Structure of the next technical meetings • Action list before the next technical meeting • How to implement the assessment protocol in WP5?

14. WP5 - Action List • Before the next technical meeting (January 2006) we should: • Agree on a definition of knowledge resource management and sharing • Define a draft architecture (SOA) with main components • Start defining a state-of-art on knowledge resources sharing and management • Prepare a preliminary list of existing initiatives concerning KR management • Identify a preliminary set of existing standards and specification that might be relevant for work in WP5 • Identify a preliminary set of existing models and methods • Define the available technological baseline (i.e. what we have already) • Prepare a draft white paper as basis for the discussion during the meeting Given the available timeframe, maybe it is too much?

15. Assessment Protocol Implementation • Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003 – 2009 For Public Research Organizations - ISBN 90-5588 278x, 2003) • Main criteria to be applied: • The Quality and Productivity of the output. • Impact, i.e. the scientific and the socio-economic impact.

16. Quality and Productivity of the output • The output can be divided into two categories: • Scientific publications: are peer-reviewed journal articles and (chapters in) scientific books and scientific conference papers. • Technologies: are the artefacts that are developed in the project, like software, specifications and methods/models. • Technology output will be made equivalent to publication output.

17. Scientific and socio-economic impact • Categories of information to be assessed: • the number of training sessions, the number of attendees, their background and their interests and appreciation (questionnaire) • the number of workshops, the number of attendees, their background and their interests and appreciation (questionnaire) • the set-up of the Ph.D. network, the number of participants, their background and their appreciation (questionnaire) • the set-up of the Competence Network of Associate Partners, the number of participants, their background and their appreciation (questionnaire) • the number of downloads of software (web statistics) • the number of organisations using or planning to use (part of) the software, their type of activities and their user/customer base (survey) • the number and type of spin-off projects (survey) • the number of questions on the website, the background of the questioner, the response time, the appreciation (questionnaire); • the number of news items posted, the number of news members; their background and their appreciation (questionnaire) • the number of visits of the web site, the background of the visitors, the type of information they read, their appreciation (statistics, survey) • the number of web references to TENCompetence • a selection of key publications (scientific committee).