1 September 2010, Rome, Italy European Collected Library of Artistic Performance First requirements meeting Lotte Belice Baltussen TEL: +31 (0) FAX: +31 (0)

Agenda: 8 September :45 – 9:00 Coffee and welcome 9:00 – 11:00 DE2.1.1 Recap of the work process and work done so far. 11:00 – 11:30 Coffee break 11:30 – 13:00 Continuation of the first half of the morning: Discussing the DE2.1.1 draft per section. 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:00 Group brainstorm sessions Back-end Contextualisation / enrichment Multilinguality Tools 15:00 – 15:30 Coffee break 15:30 – 16:30 Plenary presentation of the results of the group brainstorm sessions. Impact assessment by technology providers. 16:30 – 17:00 Any other business 17:00 Finish

Methodology B&G, UNIROMA, FRD have gathered information through: Desk research Literature study Identification of other (performings arts) portals Survey Content partners External user groups 3

DE2.1.1 set-up: Methodology Survey results User groups Use cases User requirements Functional requirements Non-functional requirements Digital object requirements (digital object type, content, metadata) 4

User group structure The various user groups have been split into three macro categories For each sub-user group there is a description of their: Profile (level of formal education, level of technological skill) Goal (an overview of the various ways this user group is most likely to use the ECLAP portal) 5

Use case structure Number + name Goal Actor(s) Short description Preconditions Basic flow of events / scenarios 6

Use case structure Alternative flow Postconditions Relationships with other use cases 7

User requirements structure Number (unique identifier of the requirement) User group type relevance Functionality (name of the functionality) Explanation Priority level Source 8

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Restructure the text (put the survey results in one place, restructure the user requirements) Expand and refine the methodology section Expand and refine the results of the survey Expand and refine the user groups Expand and refine the use cases Expand and refine the user requirements Determine which user requirements have which user group relevance. And overall: focus on the most important use cases and requirements! 9

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Expand and refine the results of the survey Make distinctions between the various user groups Rank the importance of the user requirements according to the results of the survey 10

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Expand and refine the user groups The Education macro group needs to be refined more The Legenda needs more references (how have others defined Level of Education / Level of Technological Skill The results from the survey needs to be incorporated (especially regarding the suggestions of user groups by the content partners and the goals of the various user groups 11

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Expand and refine the use cases Only the most relevant use cases at this point should be worked out, it needs to be established which ones these are Is it o.k. to have a natural flow in the use cases, so that a user in the Browsing use case also downloads a content item, or do these need to be separated into different use cases 12

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Expand and refine the user requirements Determine which user requirements have which user group relevance (UR, RU, CP, ADMIN) Make a clear distinction between the performing arts websites people indicate they have used and the requirements themselves. Also, what can we learn from existing portals How best to incorporate the content requirements and the proposed taxonomy Back-end 13

What needs to be done on DE2.1.1 Restructure the text Make the scope of DE2.1.1 more clear. The survey results are still scattered around the document. A single section needs to be devoted to the interpretation of the survey results. Relate the various sections more. In other words: make the relations between use cases, user groups and user requirements more explicit. 14

Group brainstorm sessions 1: Contextualisation / enrichment. What do we mean with this term, and what does it entail for ECLAP? 2: Multilinguality. Automatic translations of the pages and metadata / descriptions are an issue. 3: Tools and services. What are the most important tools and services that we want to offer to the ECLAP end-users? 4: Back-end. Even though there already is an extensive back- end, it needs to be identified what the most pressing issues are that need to be fixed in order for the front end to work as smoothly as possible. Also, it needs to be established how batch uploads for partners are going to work. 15

Group brainstorm sessions For each group brainstorm the following points apply: 1 person making detailed minutes Write down the most important user scenarios for each group theme Make sure you do not think too much about specific requirements for specific user groups, but try and think of requirements that are interesting for multiple groups. 16

Group brainstorm sessions Definitions Target users: The users that ECLAP targets, not be confused with the user groups that will be set up in order to validate the portal User scenario: Step-by-step overview of the actions a user can perform in order to achieve a certain task Use case: an instance of a user scenario, focussing only on the steps taken by the user for this specific use case User role: The privileges a user has on the portal (p. 32 DE2.1.1, v0.3.1) 17

Group brainstorm sessions 1: Contextualisation / enrichment. What do we mean with this term, and what does it entail for ECLAP? Manual enrichment by content partners Automatic enrichment User-generated enrichment 18

Group brainstorm sessions 2: Multilinguality Automatic translations of the pages Automatic translations of the metadata Automatic translations of the search queries Translation of vocabularies / taxonomies Semantic interoperability (see p of DE2.1.1) 19

Group brainstorm sessions 3: Tools and services Incorporating multiple digital objects into a new work Cross-referencing digital objects IPR Wizard Access for disabled users … 20

Group brainstorm sessions 4: Back-end Batch uploads Metadata mapping and processing (question by Erik: how feasible would it be to incorporate the metadata of the Cultural Identification number, the Dutch ISBN for performing arts Implementing a bug tracking system 21

Group brainstorm sessions What needs to be worked out for the deliverable: Tagging / annotating (folksonomy, inter-video annotation) Monographs Dossiers / dedicated web pages for content partners Work out IPR sub-section in section 7 NTUA will co-ordinate the writing of the technical part of DE

Time schedule In order to finish DE2.1.1 in time, the following schedule needs to be followed 15 September: send all added and refined text on the ECLAP mailing list 16 September: Lotte and Paolo discuss the work to be done 20 September: Lotte provides Paolo with the final version, which Paolo will check September: Lotte and Paolo will work together in finalising the deliverable 30 September: Paolo submits the deliverable to the EC 23