NA2 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D1.4
Title: DNA1.4 - EMI Roadmap and DCI Collaborations Doc. identifier: EMI-DNA1.4-1277542-EMI_Roadmap_DCI_Collaborations-v0.3.doc
Author(s): Alberto Di Meeglio Due date:14/12/10

Identification of the reviewer
Name: E. Giorgio Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA2

Review date 07/12/10
Author(s) revision date 27/02/2010
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link :

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/EMI/DNA14ReviewNA2/EMI-DNA1.4-1277542-EMI_Roadmap_DCI_Collaborations-v0.3-EG.doc

General comments

The documents addresses generally the goals stated in DoW, describing at high level roadmap of collaborations with other DCI's; it describes procedures and established or establishing mechanisms, but in some cases it is not clear how they will be actually implemented, only generic references to other deliverables or MoU are given for further details, but in some cases it's stated that they are not estabilished yet. The appendix (DCI collaboration roadmap) is too long, and lose overall document readability : is it really needed to show all interactions among all DCI's (sections 4.6.x, 4.5.x, 4.3.x) ? I think it would be better to focus only on their interactions with EMI, and referring this document for more details. Furthermore, the verbatim inclusion of this appendix induces to several repetitions or inconsistencies among the whole text. The executive summary seems to be more an introduction to the text, rather than a summary of the other sections : at least collaboration mechanism described in the sections should be introduced here, as this is the ultimate goal of the deliverable.

Minor comments : Some headings in appendix A (4.3, 4.5, 4.6) have smaller fonts than subheadings. See revised documents for detailed comments and typo corrections.

-- EmidioGiorgio - 07-Dec-2010

This document is designed to be a Roadmap, not an implementation plan. This is the reaons why the details about how the stated objectives and milestones are going to be implemented are left to the specific deliverables, which are then referenced in the text. Otherwise there would be excessive overalp and risk of going out of synch. Also being a roadmap it comes before actual implementation actions are taken, like establishing MoUs, therefore I see no problem in the fact that MoUs are not yet available at the time of wrting. The key point of the roadmap is the identification of the need for the collaboration with Project X through the signature of an MoU, not the description of the detailed objectives and milestones to be negotiated with project X as part of the MoU The DCI Collaboration document is an integral part of the EMI Roadmap. It was probably an unfortunate choice to place it in the docment as an Appendix, since an Appendix it is not. I've restructured the document as Part 1 and Part 2 to make it clearer that the two parts are equally important and are both part of the EMI Roadmap. The specific format of Part 2 is the result of a negotiation with the other DCI projects and the EC after which it has been agreed by all projects, that the document was going to be included unaltered in each project roadmap deliverable. As far as I know all project except StratusLab have done so. This indeed causes some repetitions, but I haven't found any inconsistency. If you have seen some, please point them out so I can clarify them. I've reworked the Exec Summary to give more information on the structure and content of the document and moved part of the text to an Introduction section in Chapter 2

-- AlbertoDiMeglio - 27-Feb-2011

I am satisfied with the explanations provided and corrections done, I therefore accept the deliverable.

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

-- EmidioG - 04-Mar-2011

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1   3 a part from usage of synonyms, this part is repeated verbatim in 6.2 of appendix A.

-- EmidioGiorgio - 07-Dec-2010

True, and both are taken from the DoW, this is standard text to describe the EMI high-level objectives

-- AlbertoDiMeglio - 27-Feb-2011
   
2   4.2 the paragraph before states that some of this MoUs are not established yet, so which actions will be monitored and discussed ? If MoU are just outlined, would be useful to list key points, as done with EGI-INSPIRE, in order to understand better how collaboration will happen.

-- EmidioGiorgio - 07-Dec-2010

The roadmap document comes before the actual implementation, so it states the principle that MoUs will be established and monitored, whatever their content is going to be. I've made this clearer by using future tenses rather than present tenses (will be monitored and discussed). The identified opportunities for collaborations are listed in Part 2 and will be used as the basis for defining the actions in the MoUs. In the case of EGI-InSPIRE most of the work was started already during the preparation of the EMI proposal and it is therefore known already. In addition there is a difference between the text in the previous paragraph and the text in Part 2 - 4.2.1 where the collaboration with EGI is described. In Part 2 the areas of collaboration are described, as for the other DCI projects, while in Part 1 the existing channels and mechanisms by means of which the collaboration is activated are outlined. In similar way section 3.2 (the former section 4.2) describes the mechnisms and not the content: MoUs, SIENA representative, the technical task forces

-- AlbertoDiMeglio - 27-Feb-2011
   
3   4.5 why this (and GEANT) are not put in the glossary ?

-- EmidioGiorgio - 07-Dec-2010

Added

-- AlbertoDiMeglio - 27-Feb-2011
Yes / Done  
4   Appendix A, Annex A, 6 This table is already present at page 18

-- EmidioGiorgio - 07-Dec-2010

Removed from page 18

-- AlbertoDiMeglio - 27-Feb-2011
Yes / Done  

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 07-Dec-2010

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r4 - 2011-03-04 - EmidloGiorgioExCern
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback