DNA2.3.2 - Dissemination and Use of Knowledge Plan (M18)

Abstract: This document describes the planned dissemination and use of knowledge activities, including the organization of and participation to events, the expected collaboration with other projects and the expected results. It is updated every 12 months.

This is an update of DNA2.3.1 (M6)

Review Tracking

  • 26/09/10 PO sent ToC reminder to Emidio
  • 06/10/11 PO sent ToC reminder to Emidio
  • 10/10/11 PO sent ToC reminder to Emidio
  • 20/10/11 PO sent ToC reminder to Emidio
  • 25/10/11 Escalation of missing deliverable escalated to INFN representative
  • 01/11/11 Second reminder to Mirco and Emidio
  • 02/11/11 Emidio sent ToC to PO
  • 02/11/11 Alberto sent ToC comments
  • 04/11/11 Florida sent ToC comments
  • 17/11/11 Escalation of missing deliverable escalated to ECB
  • 23/11/11 Emidio sent v0.1 to PO
  • 23/11/11 PO sent v0.1 to Florida, Morris and PEB for review - deadline 29/11
  • 01/12/11 Alberto and Morris sent their comments on v0.1 ; Florida is replaced by Alberto
  • Revised DNA232 expected on 09/12
  • 09/12/11 Emidio sent v0.2.4
  • Reviewers' feedback on v0.2.4 expected on 16/12
  • 17/12/11 Reminder sent to reviewers
  • 21/12/11 Reminder sent to reviewers
  • 04/01/12 Reminder sent to reviewers
  • 10/01/12 Emidio has escalated review delay to INFN representative
  • 11/01/12 Alberto sent his review
  • 12/01/12 Jedrzej sent his review
  • 16/01/12 Emidio sent v0.2.5
  • 16/01/12 Jedrzej: I am fine with almost all your responses, few open issues attached. Probably the most important is the lack of a consistent plan for the period from May till end of Y2 (as far as dissemination topics are considered). The author incorporated and addressed most of the problems I have pointed out. The remaining ones are not critical with regard to acceptance/rejection of the document. Given that the review deadlines already passed I would say that from my perspective the document in the current form can be considered ready.
  • 01/02/12 Alberto: I'm sorry, but I still do not understand how Scientific Gateways can be used as dissemination tools. The paragraph describes what a scientific gateway is and says that the collaboration with other projects can be used for dissemination. But this applies to everything we do. It is not explained why Scientific Gateways specifically are a good dissemination channel. Actually you even say that they hide the complexity of the MW. Indeed many such portals hide the middleware and are used to provide the same interface to many different middleware implementations so the users do not need to deal with them. This is a bit the opposite of what we need, which is visibility. In addition, the statement "the web-based access overcomes the restrictions due to the need of physically access the machines" is questionable, since from the user point of view what they access is their own machine in any case not the servers. Maybe you mean that they overcome the need to be within in a specific network to be able to access the services if they are not publicly open.Unless you can describe a real case where you are working with a Scientific Gateway provider to promote EMI, I would suggest to remove this paragraph. The rest is fine to me.
  • 07/02/12 Final pdf uploaded to CDS


-- JedrzejRybicki - 12-Jan-2012

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r21 < r20 < r19 < r18 < r17 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r21 - 2012-02-07 - unknown
    • 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 & 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback